PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Ryan Tannehill


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

O.city
02-12-2012, 08:20 PM
Sanchez is in a terrible spot. I don't think he was mature enough to handle all the NY hoopla when he was drafted, even though he did come from LA.

Alot of stuff has to go right for quarterbacks to be succesful. It helps when they are ubber talented like Stafford. Dude could throw a tennis ball thru a brick wall.

I think Sanchez has room to grow, but I think it would be better for him to be in a city that is less demanding than NY.

chiefzilla1501
02-12-2012, 08:25 PM
Sanchez is in a terrible spot. I don't think he was mature enough to handle all the NY hoopla when he was drafted, even though he did come from LA.

Alot of stuff has to go right for quarterbacks to be succesful. It helps when they are ubber talented like Stafford. Dude could throw a tennis ball thru a brick wall.

I think Sanchez has room to grow, but I think it would be better for him to be in a city that is less demanding than NY.

I actually think a lot of the problem is Rex Ryan. I think he's an overrated coach. For as tough as Ryan acts, I feel like he's really babied Sanchez.

O.city
02-12-2012, 08:27 PM
Yeah I don't really like Ryan that much either.


It's tough with rookie qbs. You have to walk them thru it a little. Then it's sink or swim.

Chocolate Hog
02-12-2012, 08:30 PM
The book isn't written yet, but the rough draft says he's a pretty mediocre QB.

No, actually, a really mediocre QB.

Thing is he wasn't mediocre in some of those playoff games. He did enough in the regular season those first few years to get his team into the playoffs. Same as Eli Manning.

chiefzilla1501
02-12-2012, 08:31 PM
Yeah I don't really like Ryan that much either.


It's tough with rookie qbs. You have to walk them thru it a little. Then it's sink or swim.

I thought I've heard rumblings that Sanchez hasn't worked as hard as many would like. He seems to be too Hollywood. I don't think he's struggled under the pressures of the big city. I wonder if he's struggled with the distractions of it.

You know Tom Coughlin made Eli's life a living hell for several years. I don't feel that Sanchez has ever gotten that. He's been treated with kid's gloves, at least that's what I feel based on what I see from the surface. Now, I don't know that I like what I've heard about how Daboll grooms QBs. But I think Sanchez could improve with at least a little more tough love.

O.city
02-12-2012, 08:34 PM
Maybe all the drafturbators get their wish. Jets cut Sanchez. We pick up up.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-12-2012, 08:35 PM
Maybe all the drafturbators get their wish. Jets cut Sanchez. We pick up up.

Please god no.

I NEVER bought into him.

milkman
02-12-2012, 08:36 PM
The Sanchez talk seems like excuses.

You usually see something by this time that suggests he's more than we've seen.

But at this point he looks like he just doesn't have it.

Easy 6
02-12-2012, 08:44 PM
If the Jets can sort out the mess Sanchez just might make a super bowl.

Yeah, but even if, it wont be because of him.

He's a glorified Matt Cassel, his arm can maybe do a few more things, but outside of that he's the same, erratic decision maker.

Ben N 58men
02-12-2012, 09:35 PM
Sanchez > Cassel

Sanchez > Orton

BigMeatballDave
02-12-2012, 10:48 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 only thing Sanchez has over Stafford is durability.

BigMeatballDave
02-12-2012, 10:56 PM
Who didn't think Stafford would be better than Sanchez?

Coming out of college, I figured they were about even but I liked Stafford more.

Stafford's play to this point doesn't surprise me but Sanchez's certainly has. I expected much more.

Chocolate Hog
02-12-2012, 11:09 PM
The only thing Sanchez has over Stafford is durability.

And playoff wins.

Chris Meck
02-13-2012, 12:47 AM
Trent Dilfer agrees with you.

Chocolate Hog
02-13-2012, 12:52 AM
Yeah 26 touchdowns with Brian Schottenhimer calling the plays. Sanchez is Trent Dilfer! Did you even watch how Sanchez played in those games?

BigMeatballDave
02-13-2012, 01:01 AM
And playoff wins.

Consider for a moment how many fewer games Stafford has played in the same 3 seasons. Stafford is way ahead of Sanchez, talent-wise.

The Jets are a very solid team.

The Lions are not. Close, though.

Chocolate Hog
02-13-2012, 01:37 AM
Consider for a moment how many fewer games Stafford has played in the same 3 seasons. Stafford is way ahead of Sanchez, talent-wise.

The Jets are a very solid team.

The Lions are not. Close, though.

Why are you comparing Sanchez to Stafford? I already said Stafford is the better QB but Sanchez isn't as bad as people pretend he is.

Chief_For_Life58
02-13-2012, 06:32 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.

stafford woulda done better then losing two afc championship games with those jets teams

Frankie
02-13-2012, 08:43 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.

The previous QB career has little to do with how impressively fast he has developed into at least a very solid college QB. It tells me he is coachable and will develop fast as an NFL QB. Like I said, I would be quite happy with a trade-down scenario that bags us Tanny later in the first or early 2nd.

Also his versatility (having played WR) should open the door to some exotic plays in which he''l line up as a WR.


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. Only because he was pretty much the only show in town in that draft (Stafford not counted here because he was projected as the first pick).

chiefzilla1501
02-13-2012, 08:59 PM
The previous QB career has little to do with how impressively fast he has developed into at least a very solid college QB. It tells me he is coachable and will develop fast as an NFL QB. Like I said, I would be quite happy with a trade-down scenario that bags us Tanny later in the first or early 2nd.

Also his versatility (having played WR) should open the door to some exotic plays in which he''l line up as a WR.



Only because he was pretty much the only show in town in that draft (Stafford not counted here because he was projected as the first pick).

No, absolutely not. Sanchez was a prospect because he ran under center, had some big games against some good opponents, and proved he can run a pro-style offense. In addition to having most of the tools already, including decent pocket mobility, a strong arm, and accuracy.

Tannehill doesn't have experience with that. His offense was built around making the game slow down for him. He is light years behind where Sanchez was when he first entered the league. For a guy who has pretty good but not elite physical intangibles, he has to be not just good, but great at the mental stuff. And that's the area where he is very far behind.

Frankie
02-13-2012, 09:12 PM
No, absolutely not. Sanchez was a prospect because he ran under center, had some big games against some good opponents, and proved he can run a pro-style offense. In addition to having most of the tools already, including decent pocket mobility, a strong arm, and accuracy.

Tannehill doesn't have experience with that. His offense was built around making the game slow down for him. He is light years behind where Sanchez was when he first entered the league. For a guy who has pretty good but not elite physical intangibles, he has to be not just good, but great at the mental stuff. And that's the area where he is very far behind.

I've seen Tannehill take direct snaps from the center with little or no problem. Also Sanchez was a starting QB for how long? Two seasons? That is not a lot more experience than Tanny's.

I was also somewhat on the Sanchez band wagon, but I was hoping for a serious trade down to get him. Similar to what I'm hoping for Tannehill. My argument here is I think Sanchez was pretty much a college QB pretty close to his ceiling talentwise. But Tannehill, it seems to me he might have a higher ceiling that he can develop to.

Mr_Tomahawk
02-15-2012, 01:28 PM
I want this guy. Still think people are going to be surprised how quickly he develops into a starter in the league...


Evan Silva @evansilva
Mayock on Ryan Tannehill: "Big strong athlete with a really good arm. ... (But) lacks anticipation & too often throws into coverage."

Evan Silva @evansilva
Mayock expects Ryan Tannehill to be a "first-round guy." Says decision-making issues are fixable, perhaps with more experience.

jd1020
02-15-2012, 01:36 PM
I want this guy. Still think people are going to be surprised how quickly he develops into a starter in the league...


Evan Silva @evansilva
Mayock on Ryan Tannehill: "Big strong athlete with a really good arm. ... (But) lacks anticipation & too often throws into coverage."

Evan Silva @evansilva
Mayock expects Ryan Tannehill to be a "first-round guy." Says decision-making issues are fixable, perhaps with more experience.

Tannehill said he expected to be 100% for his pro day. If he impresses on his pro day I wouldn't be surprised to see him drafted by Washington at 6, assuming they miss out on RG3. The other day I read somewhere that Washington was reportedly "intrigued" by Tannehill.

qabbaan
02-15-2012, 01:40 PM
"decision making is fixable"

If our coaching staff could do that we wouldn't be in the predicament we are in.

htismaqe
02-15-2012, 01:41 PM
I've seen Tannehill take direct snaps from the center with little or no problem. Also Sanchez was a starting QB for how long? Two seasons? That is not a lot more experience than Tanny's.

I was also somewhat on the Sanchez band wagon, but I was hoping for a serious trade down to get him. Similar to what I'm hoping for Tannehill. My argument here is I think Sanchez was pretty much a college QB pretty close to his ceiling talentwise. But Tannehill, it seems to me he might have a higher ceiling that he can develop to.

Um, Sanchez pretty much sucks.

And a lot of people predicted it precisely BECAUSE of his lack of college experience...

TRR
02-15-2012, 01:46 PM
There is no way I take Tannehill anywhere in the 1st round. He has a chance in the NFL but his history is definitely against him. He was a walk-on at A&M and was beat out twice for the QB spot. He hardly has a full season under his belt as a starting QB in college.

Tannehill is an athlete, but your looking at him not touching the field for 2-3 years at the least if you are wanting him to succeed in the NFL IMO. It's a weak QB draft after the first two go....IMO Tannehill would be an afterthought in other recent NFL Drafts.
Posted via Mobile Device

Chiefnj2
02-15-2012, 01:52 PM
If he impresses on his pro day

Every QB impresses at his pro day. It's 100% scripted.

Mr. Laz
02-15-2012, 01:58 PM
Tannehill will probably end up going in the 1st round but he shouldn't.

I would gladly grab him in round 2

Taking him in round 1 is overspending because you think he has potential in the long run. First round picks shouldn't be that. imo.

The Draft interview process will be huge for Tannehill.

whoman69
02-15-2012, 04:36 PM
Every QB impresses at his pro day. It's 100% scripted.

I seem to recall Tim Tebow was 43 of 45 on his pro day.

the Talking Can
02-15-2012, 04:57 PM
even by QB standards it's a gamble, but if we traded down I'd do it...

at some point you have to fucking try...you can't even get lucky without trying

Sorter
02-15-2012, 04:58 PM
Wouldn't waste a draft pick on Tannehill. While I agree a legit qb is our biggest need, there is no way he grades out better than Ponder, who was pretty meh this year (granted, on a bad team). The best option is to sadly draft as many good pieces for a real qb next year (since we probably won't get peyton).

Mr_Tomahawk
03-11-2012, 07:16 PM
Bump.

chiefzilla1501
03-11-2012, 07:17 PM
Yeah, no.

Chocolate Hog
03-11-2012, 07:19 PM
Brian Daboll will ruin this kid.

58-4ever
03-11-2012, 07:22 PM
Brian Daboll will ruin this kid.

Ruin what? He really hasn't shown anything besides potential.

notorious
03-11-2012, 07:23 PM
Daboll.


:facepalm:


Great hire, Pioliot. Go fuck yourself.

Omaha
03-11-2012, 07:29 PM
why? he couldn't even beat out Tyler Palko LMAO

I don't care who you are, if you can't beat out Tyler Palko, you don't belong in the NFL.

This

evolve27
03-11-2012, 07:32 PM
at this point i would take palko over cassel...im done with the USC nobody

Mr_Tomahawk
03-12-2012, 08:30 AM
http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/bloguploads/haters-kid-cudi.gif

htismaqe
03-12-2012, 08:37 AM
This

He beat out Palko the instant Romeo Crennel took over as HC.

:hmmm:

Bowser
03-12-2012, 08:43 AM
Why should we draft Tannehill? What has he done that would make anyone feel good about taking him at the 11 spot, other than every draft rag saying he's the third best prospect? Is he that good, or is the QB draft class that bad after Luck and Griffin?

I don't soak in every college game out there, so someone sell me on this kid. The few times I've seen him play QB, he was ok, but not a superstar. And add to the fact that he has more snaps at receiver than QB in college doesn't exactly fill me full of confidence.

scho63
03-12-2012, 08:43 AM
Will the Browns or Seattle take him in the first round? They both seem very desperate for a QB

htismaqe
03-12-2012, 08:44 AM
Why should we draft Tannehill? What has he done that would make anyone feel good about taking him at the 11 spot, other than every draft rag saying he's the third best prospect? Is he that good, or is the QB draft class that bad after Luck and Griffin?

I don't soak in every college game out there, so someone sell me on this kid. The few times I've seen him play QB, he was ok, but not a superstar. And add to the fact that he has more snaps at receiver than QB in college doesn't exactly fill me full of confidence.

nt

Chiefnj2
03-12-2012, 08:45 AM
Will the Browns or Seattle take him in the first round? They both seem very desperate for a QB

I doubt it. Why reach for someone who is extremely raw and is a project? It's not like he's going to come in and start this season.

htismaqe
03-12-2012, 08:50 AM
I doubt it. Why reach for someone who is extremely raw and is a project? It's not like he's going to come in and start this season.

Or next season. Or the season after, if you look at it realistically.

KC Tattoo
03-12-2012, 08:57 AM
Why should we draft Tannehill? What has he done that would make anyone feel good about taking him at the 11 spot, other than every draft rag saying he's the third best prospect? Is he that good, or is the QB draft class that bad after Luck and Griffin?

I don't soak in every college game out there, so someone sell me on this kid. The few times I've seen him play QB, he was ok, but not a superstar. And add to the fact that he has more snaps at receiver than QB in college doesn't exactly fill me full of confidence.

The class after Luck & RGIII is that bad. I want to draft a QB, but just assume wait till next year now to do so. See what Stanzi has this year and look to next years draft.

Frankie
03-12-2012, 11:06 AM
Why should we draft Tannehill? What has he done that would make anyone feel good about taking him at the 11 spot, other than every draft rag saying he's the third best prospect? Is he that good, or is the QB draft class that bad after Luck and Griffin?

I don't soak in every college game out there, so someone sell me on this kid. The few times I've seen him play QB, he was ok, but not a superstar. And add to the fact that he has more snaps at receiver than QB in college doesn't exactly fill me full of confidence.

It's the way he elevated from a college WR to almost an elite college QB in 1.5 years. Speaks to his ability to improve quickly. Sounds like smart and coachable. It could be that after a year or so in the NFL he makes similar progress. That's intriguing for long term QB solution.

King_Chief_Fan
03-12-2012, 11:36 AM
I doubt it. Why reach for someone who is extremely raw and is a project? It's not like he's going to come in and start this season.

Chiefs already did that with Stanzi.

htismaqe
03-12-2012, 11:51 AM
Chiefs already did that with Stanzi.

Wut?

Stanzi was a 5th-round pick...

Detoxing
03-12-2012, 11:52 AM
At this point, I'd take Tannehill. Just give me something to look forward to please, even if it is a struggling young QB with limited experience who was taken way to high.

I'd rather watch that than a shitty QB with NO upside and NO hope for the future.

Epic Fail 007
03-12-2012, 11:55 AM
We have the next great QB Stanzi. Mark my words.

Bowser
03-12-2012, 11:56 AM
We have the next great QB Stanzi. Mark my words.

Stop.

htismaqe
03-12-2012, 12:12 PM
At this point, I'd take Tannehill. Just give me something to look forward to please, even if it is a struggling young QB with limited experience who was taken way to high.

I'd rather watch that than a shitty QB with NO upside and NO hope for the future.

That's the thing - you wouldn't get to watch Tannehill.

That is unless you're actually AT the game and you get to see him signing autographs for the kids at the wall while wearing his "I'm inactive again" workout suit.

keg in kc
03-12-2012, 12:13 PM
That's the thing - you wouldn't get to watch Tannehill.

That is unless you're actually AT the game and you get to see him signing autographs for the kids at the wall while wearing his "I'm inactive again" workout suit.That would be bad for Stanzi. Like taking the food right out of his mouth.

AndChiefs
03-12-2012, 12:15 PM
That's the thing - you wouldn't get to watch Tannehill.

That is unless you're actually AT the game and you get to see him signing autographs for the kids at the wall while wearing his "I'm inactive again" workout suit.

If you draft a QB in the first round you don't have him sit on the sideline inactive. He'd be our second QB. You'd see him holding a clipboard while Cassel sucks. Either he's on the sideline but at least he's wearing the jersey.

htismaqe
03-12-2012, 12:15 PM
That would be bad for Stanzi. Like taking the food right out of his mouth.

Yeah, he'd be taking Stanzi's actual job - signing autographs for the kids by the wall while wearing his "I'm inactive again" workout suit.

htismaqe
03-12-2012, 12:16 PM
If you draft a QB in the first round you don't have him sit on the sideline inactive. He'd be our second QB. You'd see him holding a clipboard while Cassel sucks. Either he's on the sideline but at least he's wearing the jersey.

Tannehill isn't even close to ready. After what happened last year, there's ZERO chance they'll go into any scenario with Tannehill as the backup to Cassel.

If they draft Tannehill (and they won't) they would bring in a vet to backup Cassel.

AndChiefs
03-12-2012, 12:19 PM
Tannehill isn't even close to ready. After what happened last year, there's ZERO chance they'll go into any scenario with Tannehill as the backup to Cassel.

If they draft Tannehill (and they won't) they would bring in a vet to backup Cassel.

I guess we'd see but I think Tannehill is closer than you think. He's certainly not ready to start in the NFL but he wouldn't be inactive. I guess we'll see with whoever does draft him though. And for the record, I don't think we draft him either.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-12-2012, 02:41 PM
http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/09000d5d82779538/First-Draft-Ryan-Tannehill

Frankie
03-12-2012, 08:25 PM
I think he has a QB's face. That's it. Let's get him.

http://media3.texags.com/0002211-edsr-640x360.jpg

evolve27
03-12-2012, 08:27 PM
I think he has a QB's face. That's it. Let's get him.

http://media3.texags.com/0002211-edsr-640x360.jpg

Looks like Castle...we r doomed

Bewbies
03-12-2012, 08:29 PM
Did he cut his hair with a table saw?

Mr_Tomahawk
03-12-2012, 08:30 PM
I think he has a QB's face. That's it. Let's get him.

http://media3.texags.com/0002211-edsr-640x360.jpg

He is a good-looking guy. /Clay

Okie_Apparition
03-12-2012, 08:32 PM
He's either being interviewed by a conehead
or Kiper without his wig

Frankie
03-12-2012, 08:33 PM
We have the next great QB Stanzi. Mark my words.dream scenario for the Chiefs. But stranger things have happened.

Looks like Castle...we r doomed

looks a hell of lot better than Cassel. Cassel looks like Jay Leno.

He is a good-looking guy. /Clay

Psst. Actually I think so too.

Simply Red
03-12-2012, 09:32 PM
Stop.

ROFL

Ben N 58men
03-12-2012, 09:37 PM
I'm all for Tannehill at 11


That will be awesome.

evolve27
03-12-2012, 09:48 PM
I'm all for Tannehill at 11


That will be awesome.

I like other QB prospects too. But if it means one less snap for Cassel then i would take Tannehill in a heartbeat.

hometeam
03-12-2012, 09:53 PM
I think Tannehill is RIPE with dissapointment.

Chief Roundup
03-12-2012, 09:58 PM
Was watching the NFL network and Mayock, Davis, and Wyche were talking about the affect that Manning and the trade for RG3 was going to have on the draft. They were speculating that Tannenhill could go as early as 4 to Cleveland. Latest would be the Dolphins at 8. But not to be suprised if someone traded with the Rams at or Jax to get ahead of the Dolphins.

KC Tattoo
03-12-2012, 10:10 PM
Going on a limb and say that if Tannehill was in last years draft, he would have gone in the later rounds much like Stanzi. On the flip side, if Stanzi was put in this years draft he could be projected where Tannehill is going be drafted in the first round. It was a much deeper class last year than this year.

Frankie
03-13-2012, 12:21 AM
If we can get Tannehill in a (now very unlikely) trade down, I'm all for it. I like the guy. I like his release and his over all QB composure, as well as how fast he has developed.

If that scenario doesn't go down then I won't want anybody else this year. If we draft someone like Cousins this year say in the 2nd round there's no way we'll consider one of the better prospects next year.

SNR
03-13-2012, 12:31 AM
If we can get Tannehill in a (now very unlikely) trade down, I'm all for it. I like the guy. I like his release and his over all QB composure, as well as how fast he has developed.

If that scenario doesn't go down then I won't want anybody else this year. If we draft someone like Cousins this year say in the 2nd round there's no way we'll consider one of the better prospects next year.Even in this shit QB class, Cousins isn't worth more than a 4th rounder. I pity the team that takes him in the 3rd. I welcome the genocide of the team that takes him in the 2nd. People that stupid shouldn't be alive.

Frankie
03-13-2012, 12:49 AM
Even in this shit QB class, Cousins isn't worth more than a 4th rounder. I pity the team that takes him in the 3rd. I welcome the genocide of the team that takes him in the 2nd. People that stupid shouldn't be alive.I agree. But they on the NFL channel are talking about Tannehill as high as 3 and Cousins as high as mid 2nd rd. It scares me to think that we might use our 2nd on him if Tannehill actually goes high and Weeden later in the 1st.

evolve27
03-13-2012, 03:51 AM
The Rams are reportedly hoping the market for Texas QB A&M Ryan Tannehill "heats up" so they can trade down again from No. 6 overall.
It would be interesting to see the Rams flip picks with the Browns to select Justin Blackmon, but it sounds like their preference is for the Seahawks to trade up from No. 12 overall. The Dolphins at No. 8 and Chiefs at No. 11 are also in the market for a quarterback. The Rams have enough holes that trading down -- for a second time -- makes plenty of sense.
Related: Rams
Source: Jason Cole on Twitter Mar 13 - 12:15 AM

Pasta Giant Meatball
03-13-2012, 07:07 AM
The Ram draftabulators have to be fapping at an alarming pace this offseason. FUCK YEAH!!!!

AndChiefs
03-13-2012, 07:20 AM
The Rams are reportedly hoping the market for Texas QB A&M Ryan Tannehill "heats up" so they can trade down again from No. 6 overall.
It would be interesting to see the Rams flip picks with the Browns to select Justin Blackmon, but it sounds like their preference is for the Seahawks to trade up from No. 12 overall. The Dolphins at No. 8 and Chiefs at No. 11 are also in the market for a quarterback. The Rams have enough holes that trading down -- for a second time -- makes plenty of sense.
Related: Rams
Source: Jason Cole on Twitter Mar 13 - 12:15 AM

I'm on record of being okay with drafting Tannehill at 11. However, trading up for him would be stupid.

htismaqe
03-13-2012, 07:28 AM
I'm on record of being okay with drafting Tannehill at 11. However, trading up for him would be stupid.

I sincerely hope somebody leapfrogs us and saves us the trouble.

I don't get the obsession with someone who couldn't possibly replace Matt Cassel this year, and probably not next year either.

whoman69
03-13-2012, 07:33 AM
I can't believe the draft a QB at any price crowd not only thinks not only that we should draft this third round in the first round, but now want to move up to do so.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-13-2012, 07:33 AM
I don't get the obsession with someone who couldn't possibly replace Matt Cassel this year, and probably not next year either.

Stanzi?


We are talking about Tannehill you silly goose.

Chiefnj2
03-13-2012, 07:33 AM
Compared to all the other QBs in the Big 12 Tannehill wasn't anything special.

In the Big 12 he was 7th in compl %, 5th in yards, y/a, and ypg, 6th in QB rating.

AndChiefs
03-13-2012, 07:34 AM
I sincerely hope somebody leapfrogs us and saves us the trouble.

I don't get the obsession with someone who couldn't possibly replace Matt Cassel this year, and probably not next year either.

Probably because past RGIII and Luck he's the one I see as having the highest ceiling. While it's certainly unrealized at this point I want the Chiefs to have someone in the wings that I see as having franchise potential rather than a 5th-6th round level talent who will merely be another system/adequate QB we're hoping doesn't mess it up for us.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-13-2012, 07:34 AM
Compared to all the other QBs in the Big 12 Tannehill wasn't anything special.

In the Big 12 he was 7th in compl %, 5th in yards, y/a, and ypg, 6th in QB rating.

Tebow is waving at you now.

Pasta Giant Meatball
03-13-2012, 07:35 AM
Not enough starts for my liking. The lack of success rate for QB's with that few of starts is a deal breaker for me.

Fat Elvis
03-13-2012, 08:27 AM
The class after Luck & RGIII is that bad. I want to draft a QB, but just assume wait till next year now to do so. See what Stanzi has this year and look to next years draft.

esto

htismaqe
03-13-2012, 08:44 AM
Stanzi?


We are talking about Tannehill you silly goose.

I didn't bring up Stanzi, you did.

htismaqe
03-13-2012, 08:45 AM
Probably because past RGIII and Luck he's the one I see as having the highest ceiling. While it's certainly unrealized at this point I want the Chiefs to have someone in the wings that I see as having franchise potential rather than a 5th-6th round level talent who will merely be another system/adequate QB we're hoping doesn't mess it up for us.

He has the highest ceiling. He also has the lowest floor.

It's possible he can't play QB at the NFL level, AT ALL.

AndChiefs
03-13-2012, 08:55 AM
He has the highest ceiling. He also has the lowest floor.

It's possible he can't play QB at the NFL level, AT ALL.

At least they tried for once. We're not getting Manning. We're obviously not getting Luck or RGIII. There's no other QB in this draft with franchise potential, IMO. And of course, the rest of the QB free agents all suck.

We have a young team with few major holes (mostly depth issues). We need a RT, NT, RB. If we sign Winston and Soliai that fills 2 of those 3. Yes, it's a first round pick. Yes, it's higher than we might like to take him.

However, we will never make it to the Super Bowl if we never get a legitimate QB. I don't think Stanzi is that guy based on what I saw in college (I know some of you disagree). I believe Tannehill at least has that potential.

He played behind a QB at A&M named Jerrod Johnson who many considered an NFL prospect until he messed up his arm and lost his velocity and consequently his confidence. Tannehill stepped in seamlessly and showed good command of the offense with pocket awareness, good arm strength, and accuracy.

His main problem in my mind is that he tried to force some throws into too tight of windows and made some bad decisions. All of that can be coached out of him.

"There's always next year" and is not a legitimate excuse. What if we make the playoffs and get bounced in the first round again? We'll pick even lower and have less of a chance at a very talented QB. The NFL is a QB-dominated league. It's about time we got one.

htismaqe
03-13-2012, 09:09 AM
At least they tried for once. We're not getting Manning. We're obviously not getting Luck or RGIII. There's no other QB in this draft with franchise potential, IMO. And of course, the rest of the QB free agents all suck.

We have a young team with few major holes (mostly depth issues). We need a RT, NT, RB. If we sign Winston and Soliai that fills 2 of those 3. Yes, it's a first round pick. Yes, it's higher than we might like to take him.

However, we will never make it to the Super Bowl if we never get a legitimate QB. I don't think Stanzi is that guy based on what I saw in college (I know some of you disagree). I believe Tannehill at least has that potential.

He played behind a QB at A&M named Jerrod Johnson who many considered an NFL prospect until he messed up his arm and lost his velocity and consequently his confidence. Tannehill stepped in seamlessly and showed good command of the offense with pocket awareness, good arm strength, and accuracy.

His main problem in my mind is that he tried to force some throws into too tight of windows and made some bad decisions. All of that can be coached out of him.

"There's always next year" and is not a legitimate excuse. What if we make the playoffs and get bounced in the first round again? We'll pick even lower and have less of a chance at a very talented QB. The NFL is a QB-dominated league. It's about time we got one.

So you're saying, based on collegiate performance, that Stanzi doesn't have "it" but Tannehill "does"?

I'm sorry but that's just crazy.

Stanzi was far and away the better college player. No, that doesn't mean he'll be the better NFL QB but he was FAR AND AWAY the better college player.

AndChiefs
03-13-2012, 09:19 AM
So you're saying, based on collegiate performance, that Stanzi doesn't have "it" but Tannehill "does"?

I'm sorry but that's just crazy.

Stanzi was far and away the better college player. No, that doesn't mean he'll be the better NFL QB but he was FAR AND AWAY the better college player.

Based on what I saw in his game, sans stats, Tannehill has more and better tools than Stanzi. Stanzi has the potential to be adequate. Tannehill has the potential to great.

Collegiate performance, to me, doesn't come down to stats. What was Tebow's completion %? How many Heisman winning QB's went on to bust out of the NFL (or not even get drafted)? Just because you had a great team, or a system that made you look great in college doesn't mean you'll be great in the NFL. I know you understand that as you said that in your post.

Tannehill's ability is far and away above Stanzi. Not only did they start Palko in front of him, they went and signed Orton to make sure he didn't play this year. I guarantee you that Tannehill would've been out there.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love nothing more than to be wrong about Stanzi. I just want the Chiefs to win. It's what we all want.

Chiefnj2
03-13-2012, 09:22 AM
Based on what I saw in his game, sans stats, Tannehill has more and better tools than Stanzi. Stanzi has the potential to be adequate. Tannehill has the potential to great.

Collegiate performance, to me, doesn't come down to stats. What was Tebow's completion %? How many Heisman winning QB's went on to bust out of the NFL (or not even get drafted)? Just because you had a great team, or a system that made you look great in college doesn't mean you'll be great in the NFL. I know you understand that as you said that in your post.

Tannehill's ability is far and away above Stanzi. Not only did they start Palko in front of him, they went and signed Orton to make sure he didn't play this year. I guarantee you that Tannehill would've been out there.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love nothing more than to be wrong about Stanzi. I just want the Chiefs to win. It's what we all want.

I don't have a dog in the Tannehill/Stanzi debate, but I'm just curious which game(s) you watched that lead you to believe Tannehill has the potential to be great.

AndChiefs
03-13-2012, 09:51 AM
I don't have a dog in the Tannehill/Stanzi debate, but I'm just curious which game(s) you watched that lead you to believe Tannehill has the potential to be great.

I've seen all their games. It's a combination of his arm, accuracy, escapability, and poise in the pocket in aggregate.

He knows when to tuck and run and has shown a good ability to throw on the move as well. He's not perfect but he's certainly shown rapid improvement in a lot of aspects despite A&M's under-performance this year. To me, he would've been talked up a lot more if they hadn't blown so many games with poor defense and poor coaching.

htismaqe
03-13-2012, 09:56 AM
I don't have a dog in the Tannehill/Stanzi debate, but I'm just curious which game(s) you watched that lead you to believe Tannehill has the potential to be great.

Contrary to some people's opinions, I'm NOT BossChiefs and don't have a dog in the Tannehill/Stanzi debate either.

He was a great Hawkeye and I enjoyed his time in Iowa City. Once he graduated, his NFL potential became about his NFL potential and NOTHING more.

I'm not BossChief.

AndChiefs
03-13-2012, 09:57 AM
Contrary to some people's opinions, I'm NOT BossChiefs and don't have a dog in the Tannehill/Stanzi debate either.

He was a great Hawkeye and I enjoyed his time in Iowa City. Once he graduated, his NFL potential became about his NFL potential and NOTHING more.

I'm not BossChief.

:)

htismaqe
03-13-2012, 09:57 AM
Tannehill's ability is far and away above Stanzi. Not only did they start Palko in front of him, they went and signed Orton to make sure he didn't play this year. I guarantee you that Tannehill would've been out there.

Palko played because of Haley. He was IMMEDIATELY demoted to 3rd string as soon as Romeo took over.

Palko started over Stanzi because of a BLATANT case of favortism. You'd have to be blind not to see that...

AndChiefs
03-13-2012, 10:01 AM
Palko played because of Haley. He was IMMEDIATELY demoted to 3rd string as soon as Romeo took over.

Palko started over Stanzi because of a BLATANT case of favortism. You'd have to be blind not to see that...

I'll grant you that. Even though there's no way for us to really know what was going through Haley's mind. But they signed Orton rather than let Stanzi get some real-game experience. I just don't see much organizational support for Stanzi.

htismaqe
03-13-2012, 10:14 AM
I'll grant you that. Even though there's no way for us to really know what was going through Haley's mind. But they signed Orton rather than let Stanzi get some real-game experience. I just don't see much organizational support for Stanzi.

1) Tom Brady spent his entire first season holding a clipboard. So did Cassel. Pioli's history is to get a late round guy and let him sit.

2) Romeo knew he was being considered for the HC job. He was more interested in proving he deserved the job than grooming a late round draft pick.

Outside of the whole Haley/Palko insanity saga (and yes, it was INSANE) Stanzi is right about where any reasonable person would expect.

AndChiefs
03-13-2012, 10:23 AM
1) Tom Brady spent his entire first season holding a clipboard. So did Cassel. Pioli's history is to get a late round guy and let him sit.

2) Romeo knew he was being considered for the HC job. He was more interested in proving he deserved the job than grooming a late round draft pick.

Outside of the whole Haley/Palko insanity saga (and yes, it was INSANE) Stanzi is right about where any reasonable person would expect.

I understand your point and in some ways I agree with you. I'm sure that my personal perceptions of Stanzi (which go back to long before we drafted him) are coloring my view. I just don't believe that Stanzi is any kind of answer past what we've always had and is readily available on the FA market, whether or not he eventually starts for us.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.

Setsuna
03-13-2012, 10:27 AM
How about this. You draft Tannehill and trade him to us for Gabbert. Sounds fair right?

AndChiefs
03-13-2012, 10:32 AM
How about this. You draft Tannehill and trade him to us for Gabbert. Sounds fair right?

I might consider giving up a 7th rounder for Gabbert. Considering he comes with your 5th.

SNR
03-13-2012, 11:11 AM
1) Tom Brady spent his entire first season holding a clipboard. So did Cassel. Pioli's history is to get a late round guy and let him sit.

2) Romeo knew he was being considered for the HC job. He was more interested in proving he deserved the job than grooming a late round draft pick.

Outside of the whole Haley/Palko insanity saga (and yes, it was INSANE) Stanzi is right about where any reasonable person would expect.Technically Brady played in one game his rookie year. He was 1/3 for 6 yards.

Stanzi's got a lot of catching up to do, let me tell ya...

zonachief
03-13-2012, 11:52 AM
Weeden anyone?

SNR
03-13-2012, 11:55 AM
Weeden anyone?
http://www30.patrz.pl/u/f/06/54/92/65492.jpg

Setsuna
03-13-2012, 11:55 AM
I might consider giving up a 7th rounder for Gabbert. Considering he comes with your 5th.

Fuck that! We need that 5th rounder to draft some guy from Topeka Community College! Gotta get that small school playa!

zonachief
03-13-2012, 12:01 PM
http://www30.patrz.pl/u/f/06/54/92/65492.jpg

haha.

Frankie
03-13-2012, 01:14 PM
I'm on record of being okay with drafting Tannehill at 11. However, trading up for him would be stupid.

Even if the bait is Cassel? ;)

I can't believe the draft a QB at any price crowd not only thinks not only that we should draft this third round in the first round, but now want to move up to do so.

I have a feeling both Tannehill and Stanzi can take the field from Cassel and we won't be any worse.

Frankie
03-13-2012, 01:25 PM
I don't have a dog in the Tannehill/Stanzi debate, but I'm just curious which game(s) you watched that lead you to believe Tannehill has the potential to be great.

If I may answer this question with my 2 cents, I saw him only in two games. He did throw a stupid INT late in one of them, but other than that I saw a very good QB with an aura about him. He displayed good enough decision making, a quick release and good command of the pocket. I don't recall seeing him rattled under pressure in either of those games.

Palko played because of Haley. He was IMMEDIATELY demoted to 3rd string as soon as Romeo took over.

Palko started over Stanzi because of a BLATANT case of favortism. You'd have to be blind not to see that...

This.

Frankie
03-13-2012, 01:29 PM
I'll grant you that. Even though there's no way for us to really know what was going through Haley's mind. But they signed Orton rather than let Stanzi get some real-game experience. I just don't see much organizational support for Stanzi.

I think Stanzi did get caught up in the Haley/Pioli dick fight. I liked Haley, but he did strike me as a grudging type who would just not play Stanzi to spite the FO.

Frankie
03-13-2012, 01:33 PM
I understand your point and in some ways I agree with you. I'm sure that my personal perceptions of Stanzi (which go back to long before we drafted him) are coloring my view. I just don't believe that Stanzi is any kind of answer past what we've always had and is readily available on the FA market, whether or not he eventually starts for us.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.I think Stanzi has most and maybe all of the tools needed to be successful. The only knock against him was his propensity for a bonehead play every once in a while. But that could be coached out of him at this level. Also, the other side of that negative is that he seemed to have very short memory after those mistakes. He seemed to never let them get him down. That's a pretty good trait in a QB.

Frankie
03-13-2012, 01:36 PM
Weeden anyone?

No. I'll take Tannehill (now begrudgingly at 11). But taking anyone else in this class will stir us away from going after a good QB from next year's class.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-15-2012, 09:59 AM
Peter King ‏ @SI_PeterKing Close
Miami may not get OC Mike Sherman's college QB, Tannehill, staying at 8. How incredible that you might have to trade into top 4 to get him.

Peter King ‏ @SI_PeterKing Close
I said "may'' about Tannehill, because you never know what Cleveland's going to do at 4, and don't know exactly how they feel about Colt.

AndChiefs
03-15-2012, 10:01 AM
Peter King ‏ @SI_PeterKing Close
Miami may not get OC Mike Sherman's college QB, Tannehill, staying at 8. How incredible that you might have to trade into top 4 to get him.

Peter King ‏ @SI_PeterKing Close
I said "may'' about Tannehill, because you never know what Cleveland's going to do at 4, and don't know exactly how they feel about Colt.

Yeah we're not trading up that far.

Detoxing
03-15-2012, 10:02 AM
Yeah we're not trading up that far.

Nor should we. That would be fucking retarded.

Tribal Warfare
03-16-2012, 02:47 AM
Ryan Tannehill Interview (http://walterfootball.com/draftinterview_ryantannehill.php)

By Charlie Campbell - @draftcampbell
March 16, 2012


One of the most debated prospects in the 2012 NFL Draft class is Texas A&M quarterback Ryan Tannehill. The wide receiver turned quarterback has emerged as the third-rated signal-caller in the draft and looks like he will be selected in the top half of the first round on April 26.

Even though Tannehill is the consensus third-rated quarterback in the draft class, some say that he really is a second-round prospect who is being pushed into the first round of the draft because of huge demand at the quarterback position. Tannehill indicated that the criticism doesn't bother him and he hopes to go in the top 32 picks:

"I'd like to say I'll go in the first round, but that is the competitor in me. I love to compete, whether its football or checkers, I want to be the best I can be. There are always going to be people who don't believe in you the way you believe in yourself. It is my job to go out there every day and try to become the best quarterback I can, and hopefully show people on March 29th what I can do. Still, that is not the end result. The end result is playing in the NFL. That's what I'm preparing for. I'm working to come out here every day and get better. Be smooth with my feet and make the throws to be clean in my Pro Day."

Before the trade between Washington and St. Louis, some felt that Tannehill would be the sixth-overall pick for the Redskins. Recently, there has been some talk that he could go even sooner. Tannehill stated he will visit with the Cleveland Browns prior to the 2012 NFL Draft. They hold the fourth-overall pick and have a big need for a franchise quarterback.

"I know they are on the list, but I'm not sure which days I'll be up there. I don't know all the teams yet."



One team it sounded like Tannehill was planning on meeting with was the Miami Dolphins. Offensive coordinator Mike Sherman was Tannehill's head coach at Texas A&M. The Dolphins badly need a quarterback, and Tannehill could be their selection with the eighth pick. Tannehill would show up in Miami with a good base for the offensive system.

"I'm not sure exactly if I'm going down there or if they are coming for a workout or visit or what. It would make the transition easier. I feel like coach Sherman has prepared me well to fit in any West Coast system, but he also gave me the knowledge about football that will allow me to play in any offensive system. I'm just blessed to have this opportunity to make it onto a team and hopefully compete for a starting job.

"Most teams at the Combine that I met with seemed to be running a version of the West Coast offense, which is what our offense at A&M was based off of. Just having the familiarity with it. I feel like can adapt to any system I get dropped into. I'm excited and ready to see where I'm going to be."

In 2011 as a senior, Tannehill completed 62 percent of his passes for 3,744 yards with 29 touchdowns and 15 interceptions. Tannehill also rushed for 355 yards with four touchdowns. He led his team to win against Baylor and quarterback Robert Griffin III. Based on that, Tannehill could have some arguing that he has earned high draft pick consideration.

"I don't think you can base it on one game, but that was a great game. RG3 is a great competitor, a great player and a great athlete. Like I said, I'm a competitor and I want to compete with the best, so [Griffin and Andrew Luck] are at the top of the list right now and I'm trying to get better and compete with them."

Tannehill was unable to work out at the NFL Scouting Combine and Senior Bowl after sustaining a foot injury. He had surgery and has been rehabbing the foot at IMG Academies in Bradenton, Fla.

"It is feeling good. It's close to 100 percent now. I'm still trying to rehab doing some of the lateral movements, but I'm moving straight ahead and doing my drop backs, I don't feel hardly any pain. So it is feeling really good and I'm excited about it right now. I have a couple weeks left until my Pro Day, so we are getting down to crunch time. I'm excited and today was the first day going through the full routine. [Chris Weinke] had me uncomfortable early. I missed a couple throws early that I never should miss. Once I got into a rhythm and felt like how it is was going to be, it was a good day."

Both Luck and Griffin had excellent Combine workouts, and Tannehill has high goals of a similar showing at his Pro Day.

"I'm hoping to run a 4.5. I ran a 4.5 before. I haven't gotten to practice one yet, so I'm not really sure what I will run. I'm feeling explosive and feeling fast so I definitely want to run a 4.5."

Tannehill has been getting great preparation for the NFL at IMG, where tons of prospects have come to get ready for the pros. Director Trevor Moawad said Tannehill has been one of the best of the best.

"At IMG we are always talking about the total athlete, you'd be hard pressed to find a better example of the total athlete than Ryan Tannehill," said Moawad. "There is a great structure here. Chris Weinke is an exceptional coach. He's been through the process. The Combine, pro day and in the NFL. We have the same structure that is similar to what they'll see in the NFL. The training room, the weight room, mental conditioning, field practice. Ryan has had vision training and he has had some of the highest eye muscles scores that we've had and he continues to get better. He does everything you're looking for. Wherever Ryan goes he'll do great, and IMG has enhanced that with a structure for him to thrive in."

One knock on Tannehill is his lack of experience as a starter. He started 19 games at college after beginning his collegiate career catching passes. As a wideout in 2008, he caught 55 passes for 844 yards and five touchdowns. Tannehill switched to quarterback in 2010 and played well in the last half of the season as the Aggies' starter. He completed 65 percent of his passes for 1,638 yards with 13 touchdowns and six interceptions.

Tannehill explained why he started out his career at wide receiver, despite having the skill set of a first-round pick for an NFL quarterback. After all, it didn't make sense for a talented quarterback to be playing wide receiver.

"I thought the same thing. We had Stephen McGee who was a three-year starter at A&M, so coach Sherman gave him the nod. I was going to be a backup guy and they asked, 'Would you like to run a couple of routes tomorrow at practice?' So I did. I ended up having some success out there, and a couple of days later I was in the starting rotation. It was kind of crazy how things worked out. I always thought of myself as a quarterback and only a quarterback. I always went to quarterback meetings and never went to receiver meetings. Even though I wasn't playing quarterback, I was still taking quarterback reps in practice and going to their meetings."[quote]



Tannehill said he was willing to take the injury risk at receiver in order to help his team.

[quote=Tannehill]"I hate sitting on the sidelines. I wanted to play quarterback, but at the time the coaches believed it was my role to contribute in another way at receiver, so I was more than happy to do that."

Sherman and Weinke have given Tannehill some nice preparation for becoming an NFL quarterback:

"Yeah it is always good when you have guys who have been there and done that around you. Coach Sherman in college and Chris Weinke here who played several years in the NFL. When you are surrounded by players who have been there and been in the situation before it makes things easier on you."

At his Pro Day and on his team visits, Tannehill wants to convince teams to go for him rather than waiting to pick a second-day quarterback like Brandon Weeden, Kirk Cousins or Brock Osweiler.

[quote=Tannehill]"I think you say look at my body of work. I only started 19 games so I think my ceiling is extremely high. I'm nowhere near my highest point. I have the drive and determination to want to get better. It is not my goal just to play in the NFL. I want to win Super Bowls. I think I have all the physical tools: the arm strength, accuracy, I make plays on the run and I have leadership. I think I have all the intangibles. Like I said, I've only started 19 games so I think I can learn a lot and get a lot better."[quote]

MahiMike
03-16-2012, 06:16 AM
Only started 19 games and this guy could be a day 1 pick? Is the NFL desperate or what?

Mr_Tomahawk
03-16-2012, 06:42 AM
Maybe he DOES make it to us at 11. :D


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/colt-mccoy-now-favored-to-remain-the-browns-starting-quarterback/

Colt McCoy now favored to remain the Browns’ starting quarterback



Browns President Mike Holmgren makes no secret that he wanted to draft Robert Griffin III and was disappointed that the Rams rejected his trade offer. But now that the Griffin ship has sailed, the Browns appear to be favoring another year with Colt McCoy as the starter.

Holmgren said Thursday that he trusts in the system the Browns have in place and believes McCoy has plenty of room for growth in that system, especially with a full offseason this year.

“We will stick with our system,” Holmgren said, via the News-Herald. “The big thing is learning the system. I think in the second year of the system you will see more productivity from the offense. We’re not going to change it, but it takes times to get good at it. If you can stick with your quarterback and you stick with the system and you stick with the coaches in the program, it works. You just have to trust me on that.”

Browns General Manager Tom Heckert is also talking up McCoy.

“We do think Colt has a big ceiling,” Heckert said. “It’s my job to get better players surrounding him. After the season, we said we have to protect him better. We have to be able to run the football, which we did at times last year. If you look at the games when we ran well and protected well, Colt played very well. Colt has proven he can play in this league. As Coach Holmgren said, another year in the system and we get him better players, he has a chance to be really good.”

Of course, if the Browns really believed McCoy was a future elite quarterback, they wouldn’t have tried so hard to move up and draft Griffin. All the talk about McCoy’s high ceiling may be more about the Browns now resigning themselves to the fact that McCoy is the best they can do this year, after the Redskins out-maneuvered them for Griffin.

There are other options: There’s been talk of drafting Texas A&M quarterback Ryan Tannehill at No. 4 overall. The idea of drafting Oklahoma State’s Brandon Weeden with the 22nd overall pick has also been floated, although Weeden is three years older than McCoy, so unless the Browns’ brass is blatantly lying when they say they think McCoy has a lot of room to grow, it’s hard to see why the Browns would think Weeden has a better future than McCoy does.

Giving McCoy another year as the starter would be less a statement that the team believes in him as the long-term answer than a statement that the team has no better answer. But until they come up with a better answer, someone has to be the starter in Cleveland. And right now it’s looking like that someone, for 2012, will be McCoy.

Molitoth
03-16-2012, 08:10 AM
Only started 19 games and this guy could be a day 1 pick? Is the NFL desperate or what?

People are so desperate for a QB they think drafting this big of a project in round 1 is a good idea.... retarded.

vailpass
03-16-2012, 08:11 AM
I would be fine with Denver drafting Tannehill. The only way to draft your franchise QB is to draft a QB.

Dave Lane
03-16-2012, 09:01 AM
I guess I would to. I just don't believe that he's this good of a prospect it's only because this is such a weak quarterback class

Dictated on my iPad 3

philfree
03-16-2012, 09:14 AM
Only started 19 games and this guy could be a day 1 pick? Is the NFL desperate or what?

Sanchex only had 16 starts and people were falling all over themselves wanting him.

Dave Lane
03-16-2012, 09:15 AM
Okay I really want to give Tannehill a chance is anybody got any highlight videos they can post because the ones I've seen I've been pretty mediocre

Setsuna
03-16-2012, 09:37 AM
I would be fine with Denver drafting Tannehill. The only way to draft your franchise QB is to draft a QB.

Well unlike the Chiefs, the Broncos made it into postseason play, so Tannehill will be gone by the time they draft in the 20s.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-16-2012, 12:36 PM
http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Lauren-and-Ryan-on-field1-428x640.jpg

ChiefMojo
03-16-2012, 12:38 PM
If we were drafting 21 then I would be fine with Tannehill, not at 11.

whoman69
03-16-2012, 12:55 PM
Sanchex only had 16 starts and people were falling all over themselves wanting him.

Sanchez had a great season for one of the top programs in the country. BTW, how did that turn out?

saphojunkie
03-16-2012, 01:02 PM
Sanchez had a great season for one of the top programs in the country. BTW, how did that turn out?

Back to back AFC championship games?

Not a terrific argument. He was far less of a project than Tannehill, though.

Tannehill is the perfect example of escalation. QB are so valuable that teams will draft a third round guy in the first, purely because the talent disappears so quickly.

Tannehill and Weeden will probably both be gone in the first round. I still say we suck it up, stand pat, and target one of the elite prospects next year.

philfree
03-16-2012, 01:21 PM
Sanchez had a great season for one of the top programs in the country. BTW, how did that turn out?

I was just say'n.

I'm all for drafting QBs who've started for three years in college but I'd take a chance on Tannehill. I'd make him sit a year though.

Detoxing
03-16-2012, 01:23 PM
If we were drafting 21 then I would be fine with Tannehill, not at 11.

If the Chiefs think Tannehill is the guy, then I don't give a shit where they draft him.

This team needs a QB. No such thing as reaching for a QB if that's the QB you believe could lead this team to the SB.

whoman69
03-16-2012, 04:27 PM
By all means let's draft a 3rd round project in the first just because there's a shortage of QBs this year.

Frankie
03-16-2012, 06:37 PM
Back to back AFC championship games?

Not a terrific argument. He was far less of a project than Tannehill, though.

Tannehill is the perfect example of escalation. QB are so valuable that teams will draft a third round guy in the first, purely because the talent disappears so quickly.

Tannehill and Weeden will probably both be gone in the first round. I still say we suck it up, stand pat, and target one of the elite prospects next year.

For that we have to either have a terrible year or trade away our 1 this year for next year's 1 from someone plus say, a 2 this year. Do you think Pioli will do that?

Bewbies
03-16-2012, 07:43 PM
The only way to draft your franchise QB is to draft a QB.

No shit. Beggars can't be choosers....

Mr_Tomahawk
03-16-2012, 07:44 PM
This thread no longer matters as we will most likely bring in Brady fucking Quinn.

Sad.

evolve27
03-16-2012, 10:28 PM
This thread no longer matters as we will most likely bring in Brady fucking Quinn.

Sad.

Nooooooooooooo!

Easy 6
03-17-2012, 06:22 AM
This thread no longer matters as we will most likely bring in Brady ****ing Quinn.

Sad.

Please God, No... they wouldnt dare, would they?

Even Hasselbeck would be like getting Joe Namath by comparison.

Dave Lane
03-17-2012, 07:46 AM
It only reason I could stomach Tannehill as a quarterback pick at 11 is the fact that at least we would be trying but in a normal qb year I can imagine him being a second or probably even a third round pic.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-17-2012, 07:47 AM
It only reason I could stomach Tannehill as a quarterback pick at 11 is the fact that at least we would be trying but in a normal qb year I can imagine him being a second or probably even a third round pic.

Yeah...

...and it means you aren't bringing in the likes of Brady Quinn to fill a roster spot. :mad:

Al Bundy
03-17-2012, 07:58 AM
Tannehill won't be available at 11, he will be gone by number 5.

chiefzilla1501
03-17-2012, 08:37 AM
It only reason I could stomach Tannehill as a quarterback pick at 11 is the fact that at least we would be trying but in a normal qb year I can imagine him being a second or probably even a third round pic.

The trend in the NFL is once you draft a qbotf that's your guy for probably about three years. If you're comfortable with tannehill being that guy then so be it. I'm not. If we got him later in the first, then great.

Chiefnj2
03-17-2012, 08:45 AM
Tannehill won't be available at 11, he will be gone by number 5.

no way

AndChiefs
03-17-2012, 09:25 AM
The trend in the NFL is once you draft a qbotf that's your guy for probably about three years. If you're comfortable with tannehill being that guy then so be it. I'm not. If we got him later in the first, then great.

Yeah, that extra 10 picks makes all the difference. :rolleyes: If you think he's going to win you a few Super Bowls you draft him as early as possible and breathe a sigh of relief. If you don't think he has what it takes you don't draft him...ever.

You really think that after Tannehill wins his second Super Bowl analysts are going to be looking back and saying "Yeah, but they drafted him at 11. What a reach that was. They probably could've traded back 10 spots and got him there."

You either want him as a QB OR you don't.

Micjones
03-17-2012, 09:29 AM
#1 on my Draft wishlist.

Al Bundy
03-17-2012, 09:35 AM
no way

Yes way... Browns either take him or someone trades up to 5 to get him.

tredadda
03-17-2012, 09:43 AM
I would rather we not draft Tannehill at #11 nor should we trade up for him. Sounds too much like a desperation move if you ask me. Yes Cassel sucks, but since we made mistakes and ended up missing out on the Luck and RGIII sweepstakes, I don't want us to make another one by taking Tannehill. I would rather trade out of the first this year and hopefully pick up a first next year and package those two picks (ours and the #1 we acquired)to move up and get Barkley. There is no position we have to get at #11 except QB and those two guys will be long gone. If we get our RT and/or NT in free agency, we can address depth and other issues in rounds 2-7. Go in to the season with Stanzi as our starter with Cassel as our back up and someone else. If Stanzi works out great then we have two #1s next year. If not, he becomes our backup next year with Barkley as our starter. Cassel can be dumped for a ham sandwich and a liter of cola.

jAZ
03-17-2012, 10:32 AM
This team needs a QB. No such thing as reaching for a QB if that's the QB you believe could lead this team to the SB.

Good point.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-17-2012, 12:04 PM
Arrowhead Pride ‏ @ArrowheadPride Close
2012 NFL Mock Draft: Ryan Tannehill Lands In...Kansas City


2012 NFL Mock Draft: Ryan Tannehill Lands In...Kansas City


http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2012/3/17/2879877/2012-nfl-mock-draft-ryan-tannehill-kansas-city-chiefs

So..Ryan Tannehill anyone? The Texas A&M quarterback is widely considered the third best quarterback prospects in the 2012 NFL draft. Some people have him going as high as the top 10. Others have him falling. The word is that he's a riser right now in mock drafts.

Bengals.com conducted a media mock draft where media members from the various NFL cities make their picks and for the Kansas City Chiefs the picker was Adam Teicher of the Kansas City Star.

The pick: Ryan Tannehill.



Tannehill may be gone before this, or the Chiefs may trade out of here to let a team take him here while they wait for an offensive tackle or nose tackle. Or they just may take Tannehill themselves. With the way free agency is breaking the Chiefs don't seem to be in the Matt Flynn derby and everybody else left is pretty much a backup as first-year head coach Romeo Crennel mulls a curious QB situation.

Hmm. We hardly see anyone picking a QB for the Chiefs but that was before the top backup quarterbacks on the free agent market were already scooped up. I bet we start seeing this pick more often.

But I do not think Tannehill is the pick for the Chiefs in real life. This is way too much of a risk for GM Scott Pioli. I can't imagine he feels comfortable with a college quarterback who has been a starter for just a year and a half. I need at a minimum two full seasons of starting experience, preferably closer to three. The idea of selecting him makes me extremely uncomfortable.

At the same time, the Chiefs very well could make it known they want a QB (like, um, they already have). In theory that drives up the value of the 11th pick, if Tannehill is still there, which he may not be.

Tannehill in KC. What's the first thought that comes to your mind?

Frankie
03-17-2012, 12:39 PM
A couple of years ago I was loosely hanging on to the Sanchez bandwagon in a trade down scenario. But I never had that "gut feeling" about him. So I'm relieved we didn't take him.

This year I've been advocating taking Tennehill in a trade down scenario. His market value deservedly or not has been pushed way up, so I'm warming up to taking him at 11. I know it won't happen, but DAMN(!), I have a gut feeling he is gonna be a damn good QB in this league and we will look back at this year and regret not taking him.

Bewbies
03-17-2012, 12:43 PM
I will be surprised if Tannehill is available at our pick at 11. By available I mean to us. If Miami gets Flynn someone will trade into our spot to swipe Seattle.

And we will continue to wait for a QB....

Lightrise
03-17-2012, 12:53 PM
A couple of years ago I was loosely hanging on to the Sanchez bandwagon in a trade down scenario. But I never had that "gut feeling" about him. So I'm relieved we didn't take him.

This year I've been advocating taking Tennehill in a trade down scenario. His market value deservedly or not has been pushed way up, so I'm warming up to taking him at 11. I know it won't happen, but DAMN(!), I have a gut feeling he is gonna be a damn good QB in this league and we will look back at this year and regret not taking him.

I have the same growing feeling...and also believe he may well fall to us at 11..the big question is will Jacksonville take him...they may have signed Henne for 2 years just as insurance while they rebuild and prepare him.

Bowser
03-17-2012, 12:55 PM
If Tannehill and Poe are both sitting there, you take Poe, no questions asked. Tannehill sits a year or two, and learns from Cassel. Poe comes in, anchors our d-line, and makes an instant impact.

Bewbies
03-17-2012, 12:56 PM
I have the same growing feeling...and also believe he may well fall to us at 11..the big question is will Jacksonville take him...they may have signed Henne for 2 years just as insurance while they rebuild and prepare him.

Blaine Gabbert.

Cleveland could, but I doubt they will, Miami and Seattle would be the most likely spots he'd land today. Maybe Buffalo, but that's doubtful.

Bewbies
03-17-2012, 12:57 PM
If Tannehill and Poe are both sitting there, you take Poe, no questions asked. Tannehill sits a year or two, and learns from Cassel. Poe comes in, anchors our d-line, and makes an instant impact.

D lineman typically take 3 years to develop. You not recall Dorsey and Jackson's first 2 years?

Bowser
03-17-2012, 01:01 PM
D lineman typically take 3 years to develop. You not recall Dorsey and Jackson's first 2 years?

You mean the Dorsey that changed positions, and the Jackson that we should have drafted in the fourth round? Those two?

And to be frank, I just don't want Tannehill on this team. His value is being WAY overblown by the fact that there is a massive dropoff at his position in the draft after Luck and Griffin. The guy has more snaps at receiver in college than he does at QB.

It's been said that next years' QB class is way more deep than this years. Would you rather reach for a QB this year, or take a legit QB next year? This year is washed out due to the Cassel part of the equation, anyway.

Chiefnj2
03-17-2012, 01:05 PM
Yes way... Browns either take him or someone trades up to 5 to get him.

Nobody is moving up into the top 10 for Tannehill.

Compared to the other QB's in his own conference he wasn't anything special. Consistently ranked the 5th and 6th in his own conference in all major categories.

This is typical media hype of a prospect that doesn't deserve it - similar to Clausen and Ponder.

Frankie
03-17-2012, 07:03 PM
I will be surprised if Tannehill is available at our pick at 11. By available I mean to us. If Miami gets Flynn someone will trade into our spot to swipe Seattle.

And we will continue to wait for a QB....Or seattle will trade up to the 9th or 10th spot?

If Tannehill and Poe are both sitting there, you take Poe, no questions asked. Tannehill sits a year or two, and learns from Cassel. Poe comes in, anchors our d-line, and makes an instant impact.Really? Do you really think he is that much better than our own Powe? Poe screams "Combine Warrior."

If Both Poe and Tannehill are there at 11, I'd either take Tanny or trade down for extra picks.

Cleveland could, but I doubt they will, Miami and Seattle would be the most likely spots he'd land today. Maybe Buffalo, but that's doubtful.Cleveland won't. Miami may very well sign Flynn. Seattle lost the toss to us for 11.

Nobody is moving up into the top 10 for Tannehill.

Compared to the other QB's in his own conference he wasn't anything special. Consistently ranked the 5th and 6th in his own conference in all major categories.

This is typical media hype of a prospect that doesn't deserve it - similar to Clausen and Ponder.I admit I have seen him only in two games. But to me, he passed the eye test. Very much in command of the pocket and LOOKED like a pro QB.

AndChiefs
03-17-2012, 07:05 PM
If Tannehill and Poe are both sitting there, you take Poe, no questions asked. Tannehill sits a year or two, and learns from Cassel. Poe comes in, anchors our d-line, and makes an instant impact.

LMAO

rico
03-17-2012, 07:13 PM
Every time I have seen Tannehill, he has appeared painfully close to tripping over his feet in his drop back.

I can't wait until this dude is not talked about anymore... which should be the semi-recent future. Just another over-glamorized Cinderella story.

hometeam
03-17-2012, 07:21 PM
http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Lauren-and-Ryan-on-field1-428x640.jpg



Fine ass wife? That proves right there that he is KC material~

Al Bundy
03-18-2012, 06:11 AM
Nobody is moving up into the top 10 for Tannehill.

Compared to the other QB's in his own conference he wasn't anything special. Consistently ranked the 5th and 6th in his own conference in all major categories.

This is typical media hype of a prospect that doesn't deserve it - similar to Clausen and Ponder.

QB's go way earlier than they "should".

ChiefGator
03-18-2012, 06:32 AM
Fine ass wife? That proves right there that he is KC material~

Maybe once she gets some KC BBQ in her, but she is way too skinny right now.

AndChiefs
03-18-2012, 08:14 AM
Maybe once she gets some KC BBQ in her, but she is way too skinny right now.

You do realize they eat a lot of BBQ in Texas as well?

ChiefGator
03-18-2012, 08:37 AM
You do realize they eat a lot of BBQ in Texas as well?

Don't tell me, tell her. She's apparently not eating it. That girl is skin and bones, and not attractive as a result. She has some potential, but needs to start eatin'.

AndChiefs
03-18-2012, 08:39 AM
Don't tell me, tell her. She's apparently not eating it. That girl is skin and bones, and not attractive as a result. She has some potential, but needs to start eatin'.

I'd say that she needs to lay off the fake tanning more.

madmike
03-18-2012, 09:22 AM
I am currently a senior at Texas A&M and I have been watching Tannehill football too long. Tannehill is an athletic guy, but every play I knew exactly where he was going with the ball. He would be a huge project for Zorn, their is no way he could just step in and take the reins. That being said he played WR his first two years at A&M so who knows, I just wouldn't waste a 1st round pick on him.

chiefzilla1501
03-18-2012, 09:28 AM
I am currently a senior at Texas A&M and I have been watching Tannehill football too long. Tannehill is an athletic guy, but every play I knew exactly where he was going with the ball. He would be a huge project for Zorn, their is no way he could just step in and take the reins. That being said he played WR his first two years at A&M so who knows, I just wouldn't waste a 1st round pick on him.

Thank you. Finally somebody who sees tannehill for what he is.

Fat Elvis
03-18-2012, 10:09 AM
Yeah, that extra 10 picks makes all the difference. :rolleyes: If you think he's going to win you a few Super Bowls you draft him as early as possible and breathe a sigh of relief. If you don't think he has what it takes you don't draft him...ever.

You really think that after Tannehill wins his second Super Bowl analysts are going to be looking back and saying "Yeah, but they drafted him at 11. What a reach that was. They probably could've traded back 10 spots and got him there."

You either want him as a QB OR you don't.

Do not want.

ChiefGator
03-18-2012, 10:09 AM
Thank you. Finally somebody who sees tannehill for what he is.

A project? Of course he is a project. But he is the only QB with a very high ceiling that the Chiefs have a shot at, and first round picks are much cheaper than they used to be. I don't think anyone here thinks he can come in and start immediately. But, if he is our best chance, maybe we should draft him and let him learn under Zorn for a couple years.

This is all theory though, since I don't see this happening with the signing of Quinn, but I think they *should* pull the trigger.

whoman69
03-18-2012, 10:18 AM
QB's go way earlier than they "should".

He should go in the 3rd round or later.

tredadda
03-18-2012, 10:20 AM
A project? Of course he is a project. But he is the only QB with a very high ceiling that the Chiefs have a shot at, and first round picks are much cheaper than they used to be. I don't think anyone here thinks he can come in and start immediately. But, if he is our best chance, maybe we should draft him and let him learn under Zorn for a couple years.

This is all theory though, since I don't see this happening with the signing of Quinn, but I think they *should* pull the trigger.

But you don't draft "projects" with the #11 pick. You draft day one starters. Tannehill is not. Is he better than the projected crop of QBs expected to come out next year? If not then why reach for a 2nd round talent QB with the 11 pick?

ChiefGator
03-18-2012, 10:24 AM
But you don't draft "projects" with the #11 pick. You draft day one starters. Tannehill is not. Is he better than the projected crop of QBs expected to come out next year? If not then why reach for a 2nd round talent QB with the 11 pick?

Problem is, are we going to be in position to draft any of the QBs next year? With just a few more changes and players come back into health, I think we draft around 20 next year. Will that be good enough to get a decent QB? Probably not.

I think with the rookie cap we are going to see more and more QBs drafted in the first that are projects. The financial incentive now makes more sense, when you have to overpay for good QBs outside of the draft.

jspchief
03-18-2012, 10:24 AM
But you don't draft "projects" with the #11 pick. You draft day one starters. Tannehill is not. Is he better than the projected crop of QBs expected to come out next year? If not then why reach for a 2nd round talent QB with the 11 pick?

So why is some team going to take him in rnd 1? They just don't know what we know?

Wallcrawler
03-18-2012, 10:28 AM
How could he POSSIBLY be worse than this?




D_nRlNuE0rk

Dave Lane
03-18-2012, 10:28 AM
Lindley the QB from SDS is as good a prospect as is Tannehill I don't see the differential in , Lindley's projected to go in the fifth or sixth round and really wouldnt make that big a difference in the potential performance of either quarterback

philfree
03-18-2012, 10:30 AM
But you don't draft "projects" with the #11 pick. You draft day one starters. Tannehill is not. Is he better than the projected crop of QBs expected to come out next year? If not then why reach for a 2nd round talent QB with the 11 pick?

We have the luxury(yeah In know our QBs suck) of not needing Tannehill to come right in and start. He can sit for a year or half a year. It's really not a bad scenario for the Chiefs to pick up the QBOTF and groom him. The guy has as much talent as any QBs in this draft he just lacks experience.

Also since he's played WR we could actually have a QB who can throw it and catch it too!

Dave Lane
03-18-2012, 10:37 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQJKI1OuVQU

If someone can embed this video I can't seem to do it from my phone you can see the other Ryan, Ryan Lindley he has all the throws really and if you look at this little video I think you'll see he's got as much talent and probably won't go till the fourth fifth or sixth round.

vailpass
03-18-2012, 10:40 AM
Maybe once she gets some KC BBQ in her, but she is way too skinny right now.

:spock: Pig fucker are you?

Mr_Tomahawk
03-18-2012, 10:40 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eQJKI1OuVQU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Mr_Tomahawk
03-18-2012, 10:42 AM
I would be happy with Lindley.

-However-

I don't see us drafting a QB after picking up Quinn.

I think Crennel/Daboll want Quinn here.

Stanzi and Cassel are both products of Pioli so I don't see either one of them getting cut.

ChiefGator
03-18-2012, 10:57 AM
:spock: Pig ****er are you?

Just like *some* shape to my girls. I've seen boards that are sexier than her. Look at her arms and legs man.

jspchief
03-18-2012, 11:02 AM
Lindley is Stanzi. There's no point.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-18-2012, 11:03 AM
Lindley is Stanzi. There's no point.

Lindley arm > Stanzi arm

jspchief
03-18-2012, 11:06 AM
Lindley arm > Stanzi arm

Stanzi's arm will not be an issue in the NFL.

Frankie
03-18-2012, 12:22 PM
Problem is, are we going to be in position to draft any of the QBs next year? With just a few more changes and players come back into health, I think we draft around 20 next year. Will that be good enough to get a decent QB? Probably not.

This is either a absolute curse or a blessing. This may force us to either try to see if Stanzi is the man or do a lot of trade downs in this draft and get more ammo for next year's draft to trade up with.

Frankie
03-18-2012, 12:25 PM
Lindley arm > Stanzi arm

Stanzi's accuracy > Lindley's accuracy

vailpass
03-18-2012, 12:37 PM
Just like *some* shape to my girls. I've seen boards that are sexier than her. Look at her arms and legs man.

Fair enough.

philfree
03-20-2012, 09:34 AM
There's not going to be a NT worth the #11 pick and NT is our biggest need(except QB) so I'm in for Tannehill. WE can draft for depth or try and find the QBOTF.

Pestilence
03-20-2012, 09:58 AM
Question:

Would you be fine if we drafted Tannehill and cut Stanzi? Or just kept him on the practice squad?

philfree
03-20-2012, 10:21 AM
Question:

Would you be fine if we drafted Tannehill and cut Stanzi? Or just kept him on the practice squad?

I'd work them all through training camp and then I cut Quinn.(well unless he shows something he never has.) The idea is to get our home grown QBs on the field in hopes of finding the guy. My plan would be bring Tannehill along slowly and sit him for at least half a season and probably a whole season. Unless of course he's just head and shoulders above the others as a rookie. I also have no problem starting Stanzi over Cassel if he wins the job.

After Tannehill when will get another chance to draft a possible franchise QB? I see people post that we should get one next year but there's just to many unknowns between now and then.

Von Dumbass
03-23-2012, 12:06 PM
Tannehill better prospect than Ponder. NIce feel in pocket. Good pocket mobility re: lack of experience. Willing to make stick throws.

Tannehill needs work with progession reading but can be coached. Must learn to validate safeties after snap. Threw well outside the numbers.

Tannehill threw w/anticipation. NFL throws: Outs, seams, hooks. Poised w/downfield focus. May have best pocket command + mobility in class.

https://twitter.com/#!/gregcosell

Chiefnj2
03-23-2012, 12:17 PM
http://nflfilms.nfl.com/2012/03/23/cosell-talks-its-not-always-luck/

Excellent article comparing Luck and Griffin. Some takes may surprise people.

"Luck, despite his freedom at the line of scrimmage, was managed and manipulated by his offense more than Griffin was in his spread scheme. "

Bowser
03-23-2012, 12:17 PM
Tannehill isn't making it past the Dolphins.

philfree
03-23-2012, 12:42 PM
Tannehill isn't making it past the Dolphins.

Probably not but if he does we should draft a gaurd.:rolleyes:

Bewbies
03-23-2012, 12:57 PM
Tannehill isn't making it past the Dolphins.

So you're saying there's a chance.

If Pioli were to trade up and get him the reaction would be epic. A QB over a G and people here would go fucking ballistic.

whoman69
03-23-2012, 01:39 PM
Probably not but if he does we should draft a gaurd.:rolleyes:

Or maybe we should take Tannehill just because he's a QB :shake:

philfree
03-23-2012, 01:54 PM
Or maybe we should take Tannehill just because he's a QB :shake:

Nope. We should take him because he has all the tools it takes to be a franchise QB. The only thing lacking is one more year college experience and the game tape that goes with it. That could prove to be something if Tannehill busts or it could be just an excuse to pass on a franchise QB prospect.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2012, 03:08 PM
Question:

Would you be fine if we drafted Tannehill and cut Stanzi? Or just kept him on the practice squad?

Yes.

mr. tegu
03-23-2012, 03:21 PM
So you're saying there's a chance.

If Pioli were to trade up and get him the reaction would be epic. A QB over a G and people here would go ****ing ballistic.

Yeah if its Tannehill I would be pretty pissed too. 29 TDs and 15 picks is not good enough numbers for a "first round pick" playing in the pass happy Big 12.

Tannehill Ranks amongst Big 12 QBs:

Yards -5th, 3744
Completion % - 7th, 61.6
YPA - 5th, 7.1
TD- 3rd, 29
INT - MOST (tied with L. Jones), 15

Pestilence
03-23-2012, 03:22 PM
Yeah if its Tannehill I would be pretty pissed too. 29 TDs and 15 picks is not good enough numbers for a "first round pick" playing in the pass happy Big 12.

Tannehill Ranks amongst Big 12 QBs:

Yards -5th, 3744
Completion % - 7th, 61.6
YPA - 5th, 7.1
TD- 3rd, 29
INT - MOST (tied with L. Jones), 15

If they draft Tannehill, it's because of what they think he can become....not what he is now.

mr. tegu
03-23-2012, 03:29 PM
If they draft Tannehill, it's because of what they think he can become....not what he is now.

I get that, but I just think if he is to be worth a first round pick he needs to have shown more. Third round yeah not bad, 2nd round sure I guess its not a horrible pick. Heck, Tannehill is remarkably similar IMO to Quinn. Heres to hoping Tannehill is gone before pick 11 :D

Micjones
03-23-2012, 03:29 PM
If they draft Tannehill, it's because of what they think he can become....not what he is now.

Exactly.

I hope they pull the trigger on him. It's time.

Bewbies
03-23-2012, 03:32 PM
If they draft Tannehill, it's because of what they think he can become....not what he is now.

Same goes for Luck and RG3.

But Big Ben would never win without Alan Faneca, the LG communicates with the LT and pre-snap they are more important than even the QB!

Pestilence
03-23-2012, 03:33 PM
I get that, but I just think if he is to be worth a first round pick he needs to have shown more. Third round yeah not bad, 2nd round sure I guess its not a horrible pick. Heck, Tannehill is remarkably similar IMO to Quinn. Heres to hoping Tannehill is gone before pick 11 :D

:spock: What? How are they remarkably similar?

Bewbies
03-23-2012, 03:34 PM
If Pioli sees a franchise QB in Tannehill I would support that pick 100% over any other players in the draft, save for Luck or RG3 that we have no shot at.

mr. tegu
03-23-2012, 03:34 PM
Same goes for Luck and RG3.

But Big Ben would never win without Alan Faneca, the LG communicates with the LT and pre-snap they are more important than even the QB!

On a completely unrelated note, your avatar makes me laugh every single time ROFL

Bewbies
03-23-2012, 03:35 PM
I get that, but I just think if he is to be worth a first round pick he needs to have shown more. Third round yeah not bad, 2nd round sure I guess its not a horrible pick. Heck, Tannehill is remarkably similar IMO to Quinn. Heres to hoping Tannehill is gone before pick 11 :D

Go fuck yourself!

mr. tegu
03-23-2012, 03:38 PM
:spock: What? How are they remarkably similar?

College numbers, style of play, and just in general when watching them play in college they seemed to be a similar guy. I just happen to think that Tannehill would be just another guy like Quinn. If we draft him though I will root for him and certainly hope I am wrong though!

I still remember before we got Cassel I was completely opposed to acquiring him. I just remember him completely whiffing Moss downfield repeatedly. BUT, when we got him I put on my Chiefs homers glasses and tried to see the positives and root for him :shake:

Pestilence
03-23-2012, 03:39 PM
Quinn and Tannehill are not similar.

mr. tegu
03-23-2012, 03:40 PM
Quinn and Tannehill are not similar.

Okay.

Pitt Gorilla
03-23-2012, 03:41 PM
Yeah if its Tannehill I would be pretty pissed too. 29 TDs and 15 picks is not good enough numbers for a "first round pick" playing in the pass happy Big 12.

Tannehill Ranks amongst Big 12 QBs:

Yards -5th, 3744
Completion % - 7th, 61.6
YPA - 5th, 7.1
TD- 3rd, 29
INT - MOST (tied with L. Jones), 15In QB ranking, he's only 6.5 points or so behind MU's Franklin, so he's got that going for him.

Pestilence
03-23-2012, 03:42 PM
Okay.

Seriously? You're saying that a QB from a pro style offense is similar to a QB who was a WR at one point?

KCDC
03-23-2012, 03:44 PM
I worry that people blind themselves to value when it comes to QBs, especially here on CP. There was moaning for Jimmy Clausen. This time two years ago, people were willing to swear off Pioli and the Chiefs if he was not taken with the #5 pick used on Berry. Then, when he fell to the 2nd round, people went crazy he wasn't selected then.

The year before it was Sanchez. Meh.

Every year it seems like people are so upset at Cassel that they would destroy the draft by trading up to take some mediocre QB that they can dream will be, one day, groomed into a franchise QB.

If a QB doesn't have first round talent (meaning he could start his first year if he had to), then stop trying to fantasize about what he could become. If he is a project, don't take him in the first round -- even with the premium on QBs. If he falls to the second round and the Chiefs take him, okay. We've blown second rounders on mediocre QBs with promise before and can do it again.

beach tribe
03-23-2012, 03:45 PM
You mean the Dorsey that changed positions, and the Jackson that we should have drafted in the fourth round? Those two?

And to be frank, I just don't want Tannehill on this team. His value is being WAY overblown by the fact that there is a massive dropoff at his position in the draft after Luck and Griffin. The guy has more snaps at receiver in college than he does at QB.

It's been said that next years' QB class is way more deep than this years. Would you rather reach for a QB this year, or take a legit QB next year? This year is washed out due to the Cassel part of the equation, anyway.

Say what you want about the pick, but TJ was a 1st round prospect, and is starting to play like one.
Poe would do absolutely NOTHING his first season. Guaranteed.

mr. tegu
03-23-2012, 03:47 PM
Seriously? You're saying that a QB from a pro style offense is similar to a QB who was a WR at one point?

Reasonable minds can differ. I don't see what his WR history has to do with his QB play or potential (other than having a higher ceiling perhaps if someone chooses to fall in love with the potential). Yeah A&M was more spread out on offense than ND but just looking at them on their own merits and what they can be in the NFL I just happen to think they are similar. Tannehill, like Quinn, will get a chance to start, but I would foresee very similar results. Again, if his chance is with KC then go Tannehill!

mr. tegu
03-23-2012, 03:50 PM
I worry that people blind themselves to value when it comes to QBs, especially here on CP. There was moaning for Jimmy Clausen. This time two years ago, people were willing to swear off Pioli and the Chiefs if he was not taken with the #5 pick used on Berry. Then, when he fell to the 2nd round, people went crazy he wasn't selected then.

The year before it was Sanchez. Meh.

Every year it seems like people are so upset at Cassel that they would destroy the draft by trading up to take some mediocre QB that they can dream will be, one day, groomed into a franchise QB.

If a QB doesn't have first round talent (meaning he could start his first year if he had to), then stop trying to fantasize about what he could become. If he is a project, don't take him in the first round -- even with the premium on QBs. If he falls to the second round and the Chiefs take him, okay. We've blown second rounders on mediocre QBs with promise before and can do it again.

I agree completely. I have said numerous times if he were to be there in later rounds then I am all for it. We all hate Cassel but drafting an average guy based on hope is not the answer. I hear Peyton Manning is a FA, whatever happened with that? :shake:

Bewbies
03-23-2012, 03:52 PM
I worry that people blind themselves to value when it comes to QBs, especially here on CP. There was moaning for Jimmy Clausen. This time two years ago, people were willing to swear off Pioli and the Chiefs if he was not taken with the #5 pick used on Berry. Then, when he fell to the 2nd round, people went crazy he wasn't selected then.

The year before it was Sanchez. Meh.

Every year it seems like people are so upset at Cassel that they would destroy the draft by trading up to take some mediocre QB that they can dream will be, one day, groomed into a franchise QB.

If a QB doesn't have first round talent (meaning he could start his first year if he had to), then stop trying to fantasize about what he could become. If he is a project, don't take him in the first round -- even with the premium on QBs. If he falls to the second round and the Chiefs take him, okay. We've blown second rounders on mediocre QBs with promise before and can do it again.

Pioli didn't see those guys and draft them either. It would appear he's done a good job picking and choosing who to draft. If he liked Sanchez we wouldn't have Cassel.

If he likes Tannehill I don't know why people would be upset. Unless its because QB is not as important pre snap as LG...

philfree
03-23-2012, 03:53 PM
Pioli didn't see those guys and draft them either. It would appear he's done a good job picking and choosing who to draft. If he liked Sanchez we wouldn't have Cassel.

If he likes Tannehill I don't know why people would be upset. Unless its because QB is not as important pre snap as LG...

ROFL

Frankie
03-23-2012, 08:58 PM
Heck, Tannehill is remarkably similar IMO to Quinn. Heres to hoping Tannehill is gone before pick 11 :D

This statement is so untrue it's not even funny. I don't claim to have a professional football analyst's eye for QBs, but I hated Quinn amid all that Notre Dame generated hype because I could see he had no pocket presence and his release looked weak to me. Tannehill may or may not make it in the NFL, but the two games I have seen him showed me a poised QB with an NFL release and pocket command. There is absolutely no similarity between the two.

tecumseh
03-23-2012, 09:05 PM
Stanzi must really suck.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-23-2012, 09:07 PM
Stanzi must really suck.

Brodie Croyle...Ricky Stanzi...they are what they are.

Saul Good
03-23-2012, 09:09 PM
In the DeCastro thread, Tannehill came up. Thought you might find this somewhat interesting as it relates to the chances of a guy in his situation relative to the draft.

Again, I'm not a fan of Tannehill. We pretty much know that he will be the third QB taken and that he will be the last QB taken in the first.

Out of curiosity, I looked up what QBs have been the last QB taken in the first and/or the third overall QB over a 20 year stretch going back 25 years.

There were about 35 QBs in there, as some of them were both the last QB taken in the first round and the third overall. There were 6 years where the third overall QB wasn't taken until the 3rd round or later, so those QBs aren't really comparable. There were even a couple where the first QB wasn't taken until the second or third rounds, so those aren't really comparable either. Whatever, though. There are a lot of busts in there. Here are those that I wouldn't consider to be busts had they been drafted at #11 overall.

Jim Harbaugh
Troy Aikman
Brett Favre
Trent Dilfer
Kerry Collins
Chad Pennington
Michael Vick
Ben Roethlisberger
Jason Campbell
Jay Cutler
Joe Flacco

It basically works out that almost 70% in his situation bust, 20% are solid players, and 10% are HOFers.

58-4ever
03-23-2012, 09:11 PM
I worry that people blind themselves to value when it comes to QBs, especially here on CP. There was moaning for Jimmy Clausen. This time two years ago, people were willing to swear off Pioli and the Chiefs if he was not taken with the #5 pick used on Berry. Then, when he fell to the 2nd round, people went crazy he wasn't selected then.

The year before it was Sanchez. Meh.

Every year it seems like people are so upset at Cassel that they would destroy the draft by trading up to take some mediocre QB that they can dream will be, one day, groomed into a franchise QB.

If a QB doesn't have first round talent (meaning he could start his first year if he had to), then stop trying to fantasize about what he could become. If he is a project, don't take him in the first round -- even with the premium on QBs. If he falls to the second round and the Chiefs take him, okay. We've blown second rounders on mediocre QBs with promise before and can do it again.

You should post more.

Saul Good
03-23-2012, 09:16 PM
I worry that people blind themselves to value when it comes to QBs, especially here on CP. There was moaning for Jimmy Clausen. This time two years ago, people were willing to swear off Pioli and the Chiefs if he was not taken with the #5 pick used on Berry. Then, when he fell to the 2nd round, people went crazy he wasn't selected then.

The year before it was Sanchez. Meh.

Every year it seems like people are so upset at Cassel that they would destroy the draft by trading up to take some mediocre QB that they can dream will be, one day, groomed into a franchise QB.

If a QB doesn't have first round talent (meaning he could start his first year if he had to), then stop trying to fantasize about what he could become. If he is a project, don't take him in the first round -- even with the premium on QBs. If he falls to the second round and the Chiefs take him, okay. We've blown second rounders on mediocre QBs with promise before and can do it again.

You know why that is?

In 2003, we had All Pros lining up on the LoS at LT, LG, RG, and TE. If we could have traded all of them for a QB like Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Rivers, or Roethlisberger, it would have been an absolute robbery on our part.

BossChief
03-23-2012, 09:19 PM
Say what you want about the pick, but TJ was a 1st round prospect, and is starting to play like one.
Poe would do absolutely NOTHING his first season. Guaranteed.

Romeo Crennel.

Mr. Laz
03-23-2012, 09:44 PM
A project? Of course he is a project. But he is the only QB with a very high ceiling that the Chiefs have a shot at, and first round picks are much cheaper than they used to be. I don't think anyone here thinks he can come in and start immediately. But, if he is our best chance, maybe we should draft him and let him learn under Zorn for a couple years.

This is all theory though, since I don't see this happening with the signing of Quinn, but I think they *should* pull the trigger.
so just say 'fuck it' and grab the best QB you can grab regardless


people have lost their dam minds about this shit

Pioli won't grab a QB in the 1st round unless he REALLY thinks the guy is worth it. Apparently Pioli was right about not getting Sanchez and Clausen when the fans would of grabbed both.

Bewbies
03-23-2012, 09:48 PM
In the DeCastro thread, Tannehill came up. Thought you might find this somewhat interesting as it relates to the chances of a guy in his situation relative to the draft.



It basically works out that almost 70% in his situation bust, 20% are solid players, and 10% are HOFers.

That's bad odds, but if you hit the hit is so big you can see why teams do it.

KCDC
03-23-2012, 09:48 PM
You know why that is?

In 2003, we had All Pros lining up on the LoS at LT, LG, RG, and TE. If we could have traded all of them for a QB like Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Rivers, or Roethlisberger, it would have been an absolute robbery on our part.

Yeah, but we had Trent Green. He was a franchise QB, though not a HoF one. Say what you will, but we could have won a SB with him if we had any defense. The man threw for over 4000 yards in 2003 and 4500 yards in 2004. If we were behind by 10 points in the 4th quarter, we still had a good chance. He had a 66% completion rate in 2004. We didn't need a QB then.

Bewbies
03-23-2012, 09:55 PM
Pioli won't grab a QB in the 1st round unless he REALLY thinks the guy is worth it. Apparently Pioli was right about not getting Sanchez and Clausen when the fans would of grabbed both.

This is true. On those guys Pioli was right. On Cassel he was dead wrong, but Cassel is better than Croyle. The bad move was the contract IMO.

I hate to say it, but which QB's has Pioli really missed on? You could maybe throw out Josh Freemen or Andy Dalton. Neither have lit the world on fire, both look to have some potential though....

If Pioli likes Tannehill he'll jump up and draft him. If he doesn't he won't draft him at 11 if he's sitting there.

I'm all for drafting a QB, but if you don't think they've got the makeup in talent and work ethic to be franchise you shouldn't take them--regardless of where you can get em. And on here we can only see talent. We don't get to see anything behind the scenes, which is really where the great one's are made.

Saul Good
03-23-2012, 09:57 PM
Yeah, but we had Trent Green. He was a franchise QB, though not a HoF one. Say what you will, but we could have won a SB with him if we had any defense. The man threw for over 4000 yards in 2003 and 4500 yards in 2004. If we were behind by 10 points in the 4th quarter, we still had a good chance. He had a 66% completion rate in 2004. We didn't need a QB then.

He was a good QB when he had four All Pros on the LOS and another one behind him at FB.

He wasn't a guy who made pays when things went to hell, and he didn't have a ten year run of excellence. I don't know if a guy who had 4 good years qualifies as a franchise QB.

Chiefspants
03-24-2012, 12:44 AM
He was a good QB when he had four All Pros on the LOS and another one behind him at FB.

He wasn't a guy who made pays when things went to hell, and he didn't have a ten year run of excellence. I don't know if a guy who had 4 good years qualifies as a franchise QB.

Trent Green showed an ability to execute come from behind fourth quarter drives and could compete against any team in the league. He matched Peyton throw for throw in the 2004 playoffs.

KCDC
03-24-2012, 01:25 AM
Trent Green showed an ability to execute come from behind fourth quarter drives and could compete against any team in the league. He matched Peyton throw for throw in the 2004 playoffs.

This. It was only the injury that cut short his career. In the 2004 playoffs, if the defense had forced Indy to punt just once, we would have won. You can't lay that at the doorstep of Trent Green. If we had Trent now, in his prime, I'd feel we could be SB bound. I'd not worry about Denver at all.

Dave Lane
03-24-2012, 08:05 AM
Trent Green in his prime is greater than Manning at age 36. No Way I'd trade an in his prime Trent Green for 36 year old broke neck Peyton Manning at this point. If Trent hadn't had the injury he could've easily had a Hall of Fame career. Had he gotten an earlier start to his career and not had the injuries.

Cassel should end up with a much better supporting cast around him. Who knows what he will do, hopefully he can show a little bit of Trent Green ability and have a season that's worthwhile and we can actually get a playoff win or two this year.

Dave Lane
03-24-2012, 08:07 AM
I really don't care if Tannehill is the right choice if Scott Pioli thinks he's the right choice then draft him, if not there're quarterbacks like Lindley later in the draft that could be available that appear to have at least have his high ceiling maybe not as large as skill set But really who knows? All I know is whatever it takes we need to do that in order to get a true Trent Green or better caliber QB.

chiefzilla1501
03-24-2012, 08:27 AM
so just say '**** it' and grab the best QB you can grab regardless


people have lost their dam minds about this shit

Pioli won't grab a QB in the 1st round unless he REALLY thinks the guy is worth it. Apparently Pioli was right about not getting Sanchez and Clausen when the fans would of grabbed both.

I am not a fan of Sanchez at all. But he's better than Cassel. And nobody knows what the Panthers have in Clausen. We shouldn't congratulate Pioli because he was more wrong on a QB. At least Sanchez and Clausen have upside. At least those two teams are actively making moves to challenge their starter. I don't care that the Chiefs made a mistake with Cassel. I hate that in three years, the only QB competition they brought in was a 5th round pick in year 3. After Cassel's bad year in 2009, the Chiefs should have at least drafted a QB, even if in the 2nd round or beyond.

They are still building their team around Tom Brady. They can't lowball the shit out of QBs and play the "let's get a franchise QB in the 5th round" card. As I've said before, the Patriot Way is a great model, but you HAVE to make adjustments. You can't try to find lunch pail guys at QB. You have to pay the price to get the right one and either keep swinging or take a big shot. They did neither.

KCDC
03-24-2012, 01:42 PM
I am not a fan of Sanchez at all. But he's better than Cassel. And nobody knows what the Panthers have in Clausen. We shouldn't congratulate Pioli because he was more wrong on a QB. At least Sanchez and Clausen have upside. At least those two teams are actively making moves to challenge their starter. I don't care that the Chiefs made a mistake with Cassel. I hate that in three years, the only QB competition they brought in was a 5th round pick in year 3. After Cassel's bad year in 2009, the Chiefs should have at least drafted a QB, even if in the 2nd round or beyond.

They are still building their team around Tom Brady. They can't lowball the shit out of QBs and play the "let's get a franchise QB in the 5th round" card. As I've said before, the Patriot Way is a great model, but you HAVE to make adjustments. You can't try to find lunch pail guys at QB. You have to pay the price to get the right one and either keep swinging or take a big shot. They did neither.

I have to disagree. Sanchez doesn't care. He doesn't have the fire. Have you watched him on the sidelines in important games? He just sits there with a Herm expression until someone tells him to get ready. He does no prep, reviews no photos of defenses, doesn't talk to other players and coaches. He just thinks about which super model he will meet after the game. At least Cassel seems to care about the game. He may not have the talent of Sanchez (but I think he is about 90% as talented as Sanchez physically).

Clausen we will be able to sign like Brady Quinn. He'll be cut loose by the Panthers and we can get him for peanuts. He was horrendous. QBs like him come and go all the time.

Saul Good
03-24-2012, 02:10 PM
This. It was only the injury that cut short his career. In the 2004 playoffs, if the defense had forced Indy to punt just once, we would have won. You can't lay that at the doorstep of Trent Green. If we had Trent now, in his prime, I'd feel we could be SB bound. I'd not worry about Denver at all.

It didn't cut his career short in any meaningful way. He got hurt in his 13th season.

Look, Trent Green was a solid QB. People around here want to make him into something he wasn't. He threw for more than 17 TDs in a season 3 times for the Chiefs in 6 seasons and 4 times in a 15 year career.

He never won a playoff game. Everyone wants to talk about the fact that we couldn't force the Colts to punt in one game. Great. What about his other playoff game? 14-24 for 107 yards, 1 TD, and 2 INTs for a rating of 48.4.

But how about that incredible playoff game with no punts against the Colts? He went 18-30 for 212 yards, and 1 TD.

Peyton Manning was 22-30 for 304 yards, 3 TDs and no INTs.

We ran for 200 yards and 2 TDs at home in that game. We gave up no sacks.

I'm not saying Green didn't play well. He absolutely did. What I am saying is that 212 yards and 1 TD in a loss at home is managing a game. It's not exactly going into God mode. If we went into the playoffs with Trent Green in his prime, the playoffs might look something like this:

Trent Green
Peyton Manning/Philip Rivers
Tom Brady
Ben Roethlisberger
Matt Schaub
Andy Dalton

Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Eli Manning
Alex Smith
Matt Stafford
Matt Ryan


He would likely be in the bottom third of QBs in the playoffs.

aturnis
03-24-2012, 03:35 PM
Tannehill throws into double coverage regularly, which is a bad bad thing that leads to terrible decisions as a pro. Also, how many teams with a winning record did he beat this year?

Tribal Warfare
03-24-2012, 04:22 PM
It didn't cut his career short in any meaningful way. He got hurt in his 13th season.

Look, Trent Green was a solid QB. People around here want to make him into something he wasn't. He threw for more than 17 TDs in a season 3 times for the Chiefs in 6 seasons and 4 times in a 15 year career.

He never won a playoff game. Everyone wants to talk about the fact that we couldn't force the Colts to punt in one game. Great. What about his other playoff game? 14-24 for 107 yards, 1 TD, and 2 INTs for a rating of 48.4.

But how about that incredible playoff game with no punts against the Colts? He went 18-30 for 212 yards, and 1 TD.

Peyton Manning was 22-30 for 304 yards, 3 TDs and no INTs.

We ran for 200 yards and 2 TDs at home in that game. We gave up no sacks.

I'm not saying Green didn't play well. He absolutely did. What I am saying is that 212 yards and 1 TD in a loss at home is managing a game. It's not exactly going into God mode. If we went into the playoffs with Trent Green in his prime, the playoffs might look something like this:

Trent Green
Peyton Manning/Philip Rivers
Tom Brady
Ben Roethlisberger
Matt Schaub
Andy Dalton

Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Eli Manning
Alex Smith
Matt Stafford
Matt Ryan


He would likely be in the bottom third of QBs in the playoffs.

Yep, and I say Green is one of the most underrated QB's of his era.

okcchief
03-24-2012, 04:41 PM
This statement is so untrue it's not even funny. I don't claim to have a professional football analyst's eye for QBs, but I hated Quinn amid all that Notre Dame generated hype because I could see he had no pocket presence and his release looked weak to me. Tannehill may or may not make it in the NFL, but the two games I have seen him showed me a poised QB with an NFL release and pocket command. There is absolutely no similarity between the two.

I've seen Tannehill play most of his games, and he has raw potential as the NFL goes. I really think he's a second round talent but because teams are desperate to find QBs they get over valued. I wouldn't be totally upset if we picked him in the first, but I'd much rather have Weeden in the second. Most QBs are a crap shoot though so if they take him in the first at least they are trying.

alanm
03-24-2012, 05:03 PM
You guys can wish for a QB in the 1st or 2nd rnd till you're blue in the face but you know damn well that's not the direction that the Chiefs will take. Bringing in Quinn guaranteed that.

okcchief
03-24-2012, 06:52 PM
You guys can wish for a QB in the 1st or 2nd rnd till you're blue in the face but you know damn well that's not the direction that the Chiefs will take. Bringing in Quinn guaranteed that.

That's the truth. I don't think they pick a QB anywhere this year.

evolve27
03-26-2012, 03:16 PM
You guys can wish for a QB in the 1st or 2nd rnd till you're blue in the face but you know damn well that's not the direction that the Chiefs will take. Bringing in Quinn guaranteed that.

Damn, not even another 5th round 3rd stringer?

Mr_Tomahawk
03-28-2012, 06:49 AM
Cosell: Tannehill throws on the run better than Luck or Griffin

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/cosell-tannehill-throws-on-the-run-better-than-luck-or-griffin/

With talk around the NFL that Texas A&M quarterback Ryan Tannehill could be drafted as high as fourth overall to the Browns, more analysts are talking up Tannehill’s tape. And Greg Cosell of NFL Films has offered up an assessment that gives plenty of reason to like Tannehill’s chances of going very high in next month’s NFL draft.

“One benefit of Tannehill’s three-quarters delivery is it allows him to throw very well on the move, both to his right and impressively, to his left,” Cosell writes. “In fact, he’s a better, more accurate passer on the run than either Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin. Tannehill was very efficient off the boot-action pass game. That will translate very well to the NFL.”

Cosell has some concerns about Tannehill, including missing some throws, a tendency to lock his front leg as he delivers the ball, and poor reads of the defense — especially not seeing the safeties. And Cosell said he didn’t see the improvement over the course of Tannehill’s 19-start college career that he would have liked.

But Cosell says Tannehill compares favorably to last year’s 12th overall pick, Christian Ponder, and that some quarterback-needy team is going to take him high.

“Tannehill is a better prospect than Christian Ponder was a year ago,” Cosell writes. “Tannehill possesses the skill set to be a quality NFL starter. At this point, he would be best in a quick-rhythm, short-to-intermediate passing game that featured play-action and boot-action passes. One thing we know for certain: He likely will be drafted higher than his body of work suggests he should be.”

Maybe as high as fourth to the Browns.

htismaqe
03-28-2012, 07:42 AM
Cosell: Tannehill throws on the run better than Luck or Griffin

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/cosell-tannehill-throws-on-the-run-better-than-luck-or-griffin/

With talk around the NFL that Texas A&M quarterback Ryan Tannehill could be drafted as high as fourth overall to the Browns, more analysts are talking up Tannehill’s tape. And Greg Cosell of NFL Films has offered up an assessment that gives plenty of reason to like Tannehill’s chances of going very high in next month’s NFL draft.

“One benefit of Tannehill’s three-quarters delivery is it allows him to throw very well on the move, both to his right and impressively, to his left,” Cosell writes. “In fact, he’s a better, more accurate passer on the run than either Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin. Tannehill was very efficient off the boot-action pass game. That will translate very well to the NFL.”

Cosell has some concerns about Tannehill, including missing some throws, a tendency to lock his front leg as he delivers the ball, and poor reads of the defense — especially not seeing the safeties. And Cosell said he didn’t see the improvement over the course of Tannehill’s 19-start college career that he would have liked.

But Cosell says Tannehill compares favorably to last year’s 12th overall pick, Christian Ponder, and that some quarterback-needy team is going to take him high.

“Tannehill is a better prospect than Christian Ponder was a year ago,” Cosell writes. “Tannehill possesses the skill set to be a quality NFL starter. At this point, he would be best in a quick-rhythm, short-to-intermediate passing game that featured play-action and boot-action passes. One thing we know for certain: He likely will be drafted higher than his body of work suggests he should be.”

Maybe as high as fourth to the Browns.

So now he won't even be there at #11?

:shake:

the Talking Can
03-28-2012, 07:53 AM
Cosell: Tannehill throws on the run better than Luck or Griffin

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/cosell-tannehill-throws-on-the-run-better-than-luck-or-griffin/

With talk around the NFL that Texas A&M quarterback Ryan Tannehill could be drafted as high as fourth overall to the Browns, more analysts are talking up Tannehill’s tape. And Greg Cosell of NFL Films has offered up an assessment that gives plenty of reason to like Tannehill’s chances of going very high in next month’s NFL draft.

“One benefit of Tannehill’s three-quarters delivery is it allows him to throw very well on the move, both to his right and impressively, to his left,” Cosell writes. “In fact, he’s a better, more accurate passer on the run than either Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin. Tannehill was very efficient off the boot-action pass game. That will translate very well to the NFL.”

Cosell has some concerns about Tannehill, including missing some throws, a tendency to lock his front leg as he delivers the ball, and poor reads of the defense — especially not seeing the safeties. And Cosell said he didn’t see the improvement over the course of Tannehill’s 19-start college career that he would have liked.

But Cosell says Tannehill compares favorably to last year’s 12th overall pick, Christian Ponder, and that some quarterback-needy team is going to take him high.

“Tannehill is a better prospect than Christian Ponder was a year ago,” Cosell writes. “Tannehill possesses the skill set to be a quality NFL starter. At this point, he would be best in a quick-rhythm, short-to-intermediate passing game that featured play-action and boot-action passes. One thing we know for certain: He likely will be drafted higher than his body of work suggests he should be.”

Maybe as high as fourth to the Browns.

comparing him to ponder is the most backhanded compliment imaginable......

Mr_Tomahawk
03-28-2012, 08:09 AM
Arrowhead Pride ‏ @ArrowheadPride Close
Reader wonders if Chiefs should trade 1st and 2nd round pick, and Matt Cassel, for Browns 4th overall pick.

Chiefnj2
03-28-2012, 08:39 AM
The Browns aren't taking him at 4.

bricks
03-28-2012, 08:50 AM
The Browns aren't taking him at 4.

I think he goes to Miami.

It just makes too much sense with Sherman there.

RUSH
03-28-2012, 08:50 AM
Full story on Tannehill from Cosell.

http://nflfilms.nfl.com/2012/03/28/cosell-talks-the-tannehill-project/

Edit: Thanks bricks

bricks
03-28-2012, 08:53 AM
Ryan Tannehill started 19 games at Texas A&M. I watched six of them, all from his senior season in College Station, Texas. Given his lack of experience at the quarterback position (only six starts to end his junior year), my evaluation was chronological. I was anxious to see how he progressed as he played more snaps and gained a greater feel for the subtleties of the position.


I began with Oklahoma State, A&M’s first conference matchup in the Big 12. It was the Aggies’ third game of the season, after consecutive easy wins against non-conference teams. Remember, at that early point in the season, no one knew with any certainty that Oklahoma State would be a contender for the national championship. Quite frankly, that was not that relevant to me. When I study a quarterback, I am not overly concerned with the opponent. In addition, I don’t spend a lot of time analyzing the specifics of his college offense. That’s only important in one sense: You get a feel for what he’s asked to do, and then you can analyze his reads and throws accordingly. Think of it this way: If you based your evaluation of Cam Newton a year ago on the mechanics of Auburn’s run-first option offense, then you would have missed the more essential evaluation — that Newton was a special talent as a passer.

When I watch coaching tape of a college quarterback, my focus is on the attributes of quarterback play that are necessary to succeed at the position in the NFL. Passing the ball well on Sundays demands particular and identifiable traits. There’s no question different players possess these characteristics in distinctive and varying degrees. The overriding point, however, is that consistent quarterback play requires a tangible skill set that can be quantified.

Back to Tannehill — against Oklahoma State, a number of things were evident. Let’s start with arm strength, often dismissed as an overrated attribute — until, of course, it’s needed in a critical situation. Tannehill had a good arm, but not a gun. What helped him spin the ball was good weight transfer. He did not lift his back foot off the ground too soon, and effectively drove through his throws.

Three other points emerged from this game. First, he was willing to pull the trigger on difficult throws, which is a necessity in the NFL.* Second, he threw the ball well and with confidence when working outside the numbers. Lastly, and surprisingly given his relative inexperience, he exhibited comfortable pocket mobility. In response to pressure, he moved within an area that approximates the size of a boxing ring while maintaining both his passer profile and his downfield focus. Pocket movement is a far more important attribute in the NFL than leaving the pocket and running.

This was one game, so these were snapshots more than final grades. As I continued with Arkansas, Iowa State and Missouri, I developed a more fully developed picture of Tannehill. His delivery was a bit low, more three-quarters than over-the-top. It was compact with good arm speed, which also accounted for the aforementioned velocity. One concern: I thought he had a tendency to lock his front leg as he delivered the ball at times. There were instances in which that hindered his usually precise ball location. Some throws were a little high, especially ones between the numbers. Those problems can be coached and fixed, but it’s a process and, at this point, a concern.

One benefit of Tannehill’s three-quarters delivery is it allows him to throw very well on the move, both to his right and impressively, to his left. In fact, he’s a better, more accurate passer on the run than either Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin. Tannehill was very efficient off the boot-action pass game. That will translate very well to the NFL.

The final two games I evaluated were Texas A&M’s contests against Oklahoma and Texas. Pocket movement remained a strong element of his game. I would argue that Tannehill exhibited the best pocket command and mobility of any quarterback in this draft class. To take it a step further, Tannehill was very good when improvising within structure. When the pressure forced him to abandon the boxing ring, he did, but the objective was again to find a quieter area to deliver the ball rather than to run. While the threat of the run was present, Tannehill remained a passer first, allowing the defense to dictate his reaction. We always talk about extending plays. Tannehill did that well, preserving his downfield focus and making accurate throws at the intermediate and deeper levels of the defense.

Some inconsistencies in his play also appeared. He did not drive the ball as well against Texas as he had in the earlier games. He missed some throws that were there; overall, his ball location was inconsistent. I am not ready to say it’s a red flag as he transitions to the NFL, but it is something to watch, especially with his tendency to lock his front leg.

One other problem became increasingly evident the more plays I watched. In every pass offense, the quarterback must locate the safeties to best determine where to throw the ball at the intermediate and deeper levels. Tannehill at times did not do a good job of verifying the positioning of the safeties after the snap of the ball. That led to some poor reads and ill-advised throws, especially against Texas. As I mentioned earlier, that can and will be fixed through coaching in the context of his NFL pass offense.

Overall, I did not necessarily see the kind of improvement over time I would have liked. In the final analysis, Tannehill is a better prospect than Christian Ponder was a year ago. Tannehill possesses the skill set to be a quality NFL starter. At this point, he would be best in a quick-rhythm, short-to-intermediate passing game that featured play-action and boot-action passes. One thing we know for certain: He likely will be drafted higher than his body of work suggests he should be.

Bewbies
03-28-2012, 08:54 AM
If he goes #4 overall to Cleveland I wonder if people will still say he's not a first round talent?

Chiefnj2
03-28-2012, 09:03 AM
If he goes #4 overall to Cleveland I wonder if people will still say he's not a first round talent?

Cleveland needs someone who can improve the team now. That isn't Tannehill. They will give McCoy some weapons this year and if he doesn't make a dramatic improvement they will grab a QB who can start day 1 in 2013.

Taking a 2 year project at #4 doesn't make any sense for them.