PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Ryan Tannehill


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

Shag
03-30-2012, 09:27 AM
The Vikings have to be hoping rumors start flying about Cleveland wanting Tannehill at 4 - hell, they may start them on their own. Could make the #3 a valuable trade commodity if any other team has bought into him...

Dave Lane
03-30-2012, 09:28 AM
IMHO, Tannehill has more blemishes than most 1st round prospects, and some major ones at that. Playing poorly in crunch time is big to me.

Playing poorly against good teams bothers me more.

Rausch
03-30-2012, 09:31 AM
Playing poorly against good teams...

We already have one of those.

O.city
03-30-2012, 09:34 AM
Being a big 12 fan, I watched alot of A&M.


The guy had alot of drops in those losses and guys fumbling balls. Defensively they weren't very good either.

Granted, if Tannehill is this great why couldn't he overcome some of this? Couldn't tell ya.


The Chiefs have been in qb hell for years. If they want to take a flyer on this guy, if he makes it to 11, go for it. I'll support it.

Chiefnj2
03-30-2012, 09:37 AM
Mayock's 2011 QB Rankings in March.

Blaine Gabbert, Missouri
Jake Locker, Washington
Cam Newton, Auburn
Ryan Mallett, Arkansas
Andy Dalton, TCU

BossChief
03-30-2012, 09:40 AM
I keep asking and get no answer.

If we pass on the chance at Tanehill, when/how are we supposed to draft a quarterback?

This team is gonna be drafting in the second half of the first for a few years.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 09:41 AM
Am I wrong saying the risk/reward is damn close to Aaron "tedford" Rogers?

20 starts or 22 starts

suds79
03-30-2012, 09:43 AM
I keep asking and get no answer.

If we pass on the chance at Tanehill, when/how are we supposed to draft a quarterback?

This team is gonna be drafting in the second half of the first for a few years.

Well the painful answer is that management must believe there's a guy close to him (or better who knows) in the mid rounds (ex: Osweiler, Cousins, Foles). Or they simply won't take a QB this year and believe that Stanzi will come around or they'll find a QBOTF in the mid rounds later on.

philfree
03-30-2012, 09:44 AM
Mayock's 2011 QB Rankings in March.

Blaine Gabbert, Missouri
Jake Locker, Washington
Cam Newton, Auburn
Ryan Mallett, Arkansas
Andy Dalton, TCU

Why did he rank GAbbert and Locker ahead of Newton? I'm guessing it had something to do with the number of starts.

jspchief
03-30-2012, 09:45 AM
I keep asking and get no answer.

If we pass on the chance at Tanehill, when/how are we supposed to draft a quarterback?

This team is gonna be drafting in the second half of the first for a few years.

Yep, we just have to wait until we go 2-14.

Then pray its a Luck/RG3 year.

O.city
03-30-2012, 09:47 AM
If Tannehill makes it to 11, he will be a Chief. There has been too much smoke about the qb from the front office for them to only make the Quinn move.



Shit, take him at 11, sit him behind Cassel for a year. I think that would be fine.

suds79
03-30-2012, 09:48 AM
If Tannehill makes it to 11, he will be a Chief. There has been too much smoke about the qb from the front office for them to only make the Quinn move.

Shit, take him at 11, sit him behind Cassel for a year. I think that would be fine.

But are they going to carry 4 QBs? I don't think so.

That's the problem when you have a waste of space eating up a roster spot... Talking Cassel of course. :P

jspchief
03-30-2012, 09:49 AM
Why did he rank GAbbert and Locker ahead of Newton? I'm guessing it had something to do with the number of starts.

By April 4th he had Newton as #2 behind Locker, and said he'd consider anyone other than Newton going #1 overall to be an "upset".

O.city
03-30-2012, 09:49 AM
If you take Tannehill, let Stanzi walk or put him on the practice squad.



It sucks but if you are sold on Tannehill being the future, it's a move you make.

philfree
03-30-2012, 09:49 AM
Yep, we just have to wait until we go 2-14.

Then pray its a Luck/RG3 year.

WE did that and there wasn't any better prospect available to us then there is now. We'd better gamble and make the pick when there's a chance. Out of all the teams for the Chiefs to pass on a QB would incredible. I guess in another 20 years we may get the chance again.

Chiefnj2
03-30-2012, 09:50 AM
If KC drafts Tannehill the biggest problem will be Daboll.

jspchief
03-30-2012, 09:50 AM
But are they going to carry 4 QBs? I don't think so.

That's the problem when you have a waste of space eating up a roster spot... Talking Cassel of course. :P

Quinn and Stanzi are both disposable. Particularly Stanzi.

O.city
03-30-2012, 09:51 AM
Hopefully Daboll learned from the whole Cleveland debacle. If we draft Tannehill, maybe Zorn will be the guy that has alot to do with him.

suds79
03-30-2012, 09:51 AM
Quinn and Stanzi are both disposable. Particularly Stanzi.

Well I agree in Stanzi but I don't think Pioli is going to throw the towl on him after 1 year. That would look bad on his part IMO. And we know Scott isn't doing that.

jspchief
03-30-2012, 09:53 AM
Well I agree in Stanzi but I don't think Pioli is going to throw the towl on him after 1 year. That would look bad on his part IMO. And we know Scott isn't doing that.

Stanzi is a late pick that's been glorified by a desperate fanbase. It's an easily defended cut.

philfree
03-30-2012, 09:54 AM
If you take Tannehill, let Stanzi walk or put him on the practice squad.


It sucks but if you are sold on Tannehill being the future, it's a move you make.

No you don't. You make them compete and you hope Stanzi out plays Quinn and Cassel.

Cassel can start the season and Stanzi can be the #2 and Tannehill rides pine for at least half a year. In the end it'd be great to have both young guys pan out. Who knows maybe we could trade Stanzi for a 2nd round pick in a year or so down the road. Or who knows maybe Stanzi becomes the guy and we can trade Tannehill and get our first round pick back a few years down the road.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 09:58 AM
If we draft Tanehill, you let the comp play out and cut the worst guy if you can't trade Cassel.

If all 4 look good, keep 4 on the roster and cut The worst one at seasons end.

philfree
03-30-2012, 10:00 AM
QBs are a commodity so you don't give away young talent.

Chiefnj2
03-30-2012, 10:06 AM
If we draft Tanehill, you let the comp play out and cut the worst guy if you can't trade Cassel.

If all 4 look good, keep 4 on the roster and cut The worst one at seasons end.

They aren't going to trade Cassel in any event. Even the people who like Tannehill don't come out and say he can start right away.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 10:09 AM
Also, Cassel is owed 17 million in 13-14...no way they pay that if Tanehill is drafted in the first round.

Cassel would be on the chopping/trade block if that happens.

Stanzi is under contract for 3 years and is cheap.

Quinn is on a 1 year deal.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 10:11 AM
They aren't going to trade Cassel in any event. Even the people who like Tannehill don't come out and say he can start right away.

I should have clarified that I was saying that with keeping 4 and moving him after the year.

philfree
03-30-2012, 10:12 AM
Also, Cassel is owed 17 million in 13-14...no way they pay that if Tanehill is drafted in the first round.

Cassel would be on the chopping/trade block if that happens.

Stanzi is under contract for 3 years and is cheap.

Quinn is on a 1 year deal.

13-14? In 1314 we took a little trip?

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 10:14 AM
13-14? In 1314 we took a little trip?

:spock:

philfree
03-30-2012, 10:16 AM
:spock:

I have no idea what he meant by 13-14. Is that suppossed to be a date or something.

jspchief
03-30-2012, 10:27 AM
2013-2014

O.city
03-30-2012, 10:29 AM
Well you probably aren't getting rid of Cassel this year. So he's gonna be on the roster atleast for this year.


Tannehill is a first round pick, so he's gonna be protected.

I'd say it would be Stanzi and Quinn to battle it out for the backup or third spot.

I know some here like Stanzi, I do as well. But in the end he is a fifth round pick.

O.city
03-30-2012, 10:30 AM
No you don't. You make them compete and you hope Stanzi out plays Quinn and Cassel.

Cassel can start the season and Stanzi can be the #2 and Tannehill rides pine for at least half a year. In the end it'd be great to have both young guys pan out. Who knows maybe we could trade Stanzi for a 2nd round pick in a year or so down the road. Or who knows maybe Stanzi becomes the guy and we can trade Tannehill and get our first round pick back a few years down the road.

Problem with that is, that you have a backup and 3 qb that have zero playing experience in the NFL.


I would be fine to roll with that, but the GM and head coach likely won't.

philfree
03-30-2012, 10:30 AM
2013-2014

So we would trade or cut Cassel after the end of the 2012 season.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 10:30 AM
I know some here like Stanzi, I do as well. But in the end he is a fifth round pick.

But...but...but...he started a lot of games in college.

And he is from Iowa...

philfree
03-30-2012, 10:34 AM
Problem with that is, that you have a backup and 3 qb that have zero playing experience in the NFL.


I would be fine to roll with that, but the GM and head coach likely won't.

Isn't that what NE basically does?

jspchief
03-30-2012, 10:36 AM
So we would trade or cut Cassel after the end of the 2012 season.

I don't think there's any way Cassel is on this team next year under his current contract.

philfree
03-30-2012, 10:37 AM
I don't think there's any way Cassel is on this team next year under his current contract.

Yeah you're probably right on that. I hope you're right.

O.city
03-30-2012, 10:42 AM
I like Stanzi as much as the next guy. But there was a reason he was a 5th rounder.


If you are taking Tannehill at 11, it's saying you really like him as a prospect and he is gonna be your future.


I like Stanzi as a prospect but either him or Quinn become expendable.

O.city
03-30-2012, 10:43 AM
Isn't that what NE basically does?

Yeah, but they also have possible the greatest qb in the history of the game starting for them.

philfree
03-30-2012, 10:49 AM
Yeah, but they also have possible the greatest qb in the history of the game starting for them.

Yeah but since they are a real SB contender every year wouldn't it make more sense to have an experienced backup instead of a young inexperienced guy? But they don't do it that way and they didn't when Blesdsoe was the starter.

Yo'll never find a gem at QB if you keep bringing in backups from other teams to be your #2. That makes it damn near impossible to develop a young QB.

philfree
03-30-2012, 10:50 AM
I like Stanzi as much as the next guy. But there was a reason he was a 5th rounder.


If you are taking Tannehill at 11, it's saying you really like him as a prospect and he is gonna be your future.


I like Stanzi as a prospect but either him or Quinn become expendable.

Quinn? I hear the faint sound of a toilet flushing.

O.city
03-30-2012, 10:51 AM
Yeah but since they are a real SB contender every year wouldn't it make more sense to have an experienced backup instead of a young inexperienced guy? But they don't do it that way and they didn't when Blesdsoe was the starter.

Yo'll never find a gem at QB if you keep bringing in backups from other teams to be your #2. That makes it damn near impossible to develop a young QB.

I agree. I'm not trying to argue with you about it.



I'm just saying that in NE if Brady goes down, they are pretty much done. Doesn't matter who they have as a backup.


Might as well bring in some cheap young guys.

Dave Lane
03-30-2012, 10:53 AM
I keep asking and get no answer.

If we pass on the chance at Tanehill, when/how are we supposed to draft a quarterback?

This team is gonna be drafting in the second half of the first for a few years.

I like Ryan Lindley as the same guy as Tannehill minus the speed. I'd hate to lose Stanzi to get a guy with the same ceiling.

philfree
03-30-2012, 10:58 AM
I agree. I'm not trying to argue with you about it.



I'm just saying that in NE if Brady goes down, they are pretty much done. Doesn't matter who they have as a backup.
Might as well bring in some cheap young guys.

I'm not trying to argue either but they won 11 games with Cassel. They also had Bledsoe and an inexperienced Tom Brady as the #2 and we know how that turned out.

O.city
03-30-2012, 11:00 AM
Yeah they did.



Hell they rolled with Palko as the backup this year. I'd rather go with Stanzi and Tannehill than that.

AndChiefs
03-30-2012, 11:01 AM
I like Ryan Lindley as the same guy as Tannehill minus the speed. I'd hate to lose Stanzi to get a guy with the same ceiling.

Yeah I'd hate to lose a guy with 5th round talent to draft a guy with 1st round talent. Man that would suck.

philfree
03-30-2012, 11:02 AM
Yeah they did.



Hell they rolled with Palko as the backup this year. I'd rather go with Stanzi and Tannehill than that.

Exactly.

O.city
03-30-2012, 11:08 AM
If we could somehow get our hands on Tannehill, I'd go with Stanzi and him behind Cassel.

Coogs
03-30-2012, 11:10 AM
How many of you are in favor of trading up to get Tannehill? Probably going to have to jump Mimai if we want him.

From the looks of things, Cleveland is going to hold the key for us, as going up to #3 is probably out of the question with the Vikes due to the cost.

From what I have read, St. Louis really wants Blackmon, but if he is not there, they would be interested in trading down.

So let's just say Cleveland goes Blackmon at #4, and St. Louis fields trade offers for #6.

How about this...

#11 1250 points
#44 470 points
#107 80 points

for

#6 1600 points
#96 116 points

That is a swap of 1st, and our 2nd, plus a swap of 4ths (which would give us the first overall pick on day 3 of the draft).

jspchief
03-30-2012, 11:12 AM
If we could somehow get our hands on Tannehill, I'd go with Stanzi and him behind Cassel.

I tend to agree. Take your chances on youth like we've done with so many other positions the last few years.

Let some other team resurrect Brady Quinn.

philfree
03-30-2012, 11:17 AM
If we could somehow get our hands on Tannehill, I'd go with Stanzi and him behind Cassel.

And ideally Stanzi will find his way onto the field and play well before the season is over. Then the next year we lose Cassel and let Stanzi and Tannehill compete while we draft a QB in the 5th round. The following year we trade Stanzi for 2nd or even 1st round pick. Rinse and repeat with the backups.

No I haven't touched a pipe this morning though it kind of sounds like I have.

O.city
03-30-2012, 11:19 AM
If we get Tannehill, he's probably getting preference over Stanzi, unless Stanzi goes Brady style.


If we draft Tannehill at 11, he likely will play this year at somepoint.

philfree
03-30-2012, 11:23 AM
How many of you are in favor of trading up to get Tannehill? Probably going to have to jump Mimai if we want him.

From the looks of things, Cleveland is going to hold the key for us, as going up to #3 is probably out of the question with the Vikes due to the cost.

From what I have read, St. Louis really wants Blackmon, but if he is not there, they would be interested in trading down.

So let's just say Cleveland goes Blackmon at #4, and St. Louis fields trade offers for #6.

How about this...

#11 1250 points
#44 470 points
#107 80 points

for

#6 1600 points
#96 116 points

That is a swap of 1st, and our 2nd, plus a swap of 4ths (which would give us the first overall pick on day 3 of the draft).

I don't talk trade ups really but if that's the way it went down I'd be good with it.

ChiefAshhole20
03-30-2012, 11:47 AM
Why should we want him at #11 if his own college coach doesnt want him a few picks before us?? If he makes it to us, there is a reason for it

Coogs
03-30-2012, 11:49 AM
Why should we want him at #11 if his own college coach doesnt want him a few picks before us?? If he makes it to us, there is a reason for it

So we should wait and see what Miami does? If they don't take him... pass, because his college coach passes on him. But if they do take him... :hmmm:

Mr. Laz
03-30-2012, 11:54 AM
How many of you are in favor of trading up to get Tannehill? Probably going to have to jump Mimai if we want him.

From the looks of things, Cleveland is going to hold the key for us, as going up to #3 is probably out of the question with the Vikes due to the cost.

From what I have read, St. Louis really wants Blackmon, but if he is not there, they would be interested in trading down.

So let's just say Cleveland goes Blackmon at #4, and St. Louis fields trade offers for #6.
another year,another draft,another QB freakout by coogs


LMAO

Coogs
03-30-2012, 11:57 AM
another year,another draft,another QB freakout by coogs


LMAO

:shrug: What's a guy to do? I've wanted a QB forever it seems like. Can't believe those dudes up at Arrowhead 1 don't ever listen to me either! :D

saphojunkie
03-30-2012, 12:00 PM
Whoever wants Tannehill is going to have to trade with Minnesota. That's my professional, medical opinion.

Coogs
03-30-2012, 12:02 PM
Whoever wants Tannehill is going to have to trade with Minnesota. That's my professional, medical opinion.

If that happens, we probably are not getting Tannehill. Pioli has pretty much said he is not going to mortgage the future to move up, but he will if it is within reason. If he gets by Cleveland we might have a chance.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 12:05 PM
@MaryKayCabot espn's todd mcshay "i don't think the difference between rg3 and tannehill is all that big"

Mr. Laz
03-30-2012, 12:06 PM
If that happens, we probably are not getting Tannehill. Pioli has pretty much said he is not going to mortgage the future to move up, but he will if it is within reason. If he gets by Cleveland we might have a chance.
He was referring to the coast of trading up for RGIII etc not giving up a 2nd rd pick to move up a few slots.


Tannehill inexperience is more of an issue than losing a draft pick for a trade up.

Coogs
03-30-2012, 12:09 PM
He was referring to the coast of trading up for RGIII etc not giving up a 2nd rd pick to move up a few slots.

#6 to #2 cost a fortune for the Skins.

#11 to #3 probably wouldn't be quite as expensive, but not just a 2nd round pick.

O.city
03-30-2012, 12:12 PM
@MaryKayCabot espn's todd mcshay "i don't think the difference between rg3 and tannehill is all that big"

Wow. Thats a big statement.

O.city
03-30-2012, 12:13 PM
If he is that good, the Browns will probably grab him at 4.



However, if they don't I'd be talking to whoever is in front of the Phins. It wouldn't be near as expensive.

evolve27
03-30-2012, 12:13 PM
#6 to #2 cost a fortune for the Skins.

#11 to #3 probably wouldn't be quite as expensive, but not just a 2nd round pick.

Don't do it!

O.city
03-30-2012, 12:15 PM
I was hoping the Dolphins and/or Browns would fill the qb spot in free agency.

Chiefnj2
03-30-2012, 12:18 PM
@MaryKayCabot espn's todd mcshay "i don't think the difference between rg3 and tannehill is all that big"

McShay championed Snead and Woodson

Coogs
03-30-2012, 12:42 PM
If he is that good, the Browns will probably grab him at 4.



However, if they don't I'd be talking to whoever is in front of the Phins. It wouldn't be near as expensive.

5. Tampa Bay
6. St. Louis... who has left hints they could be convinced to trade back again
7. Jax

O.city
03-30-2012, 12:43 PM
Going from 11 to say 7 woulnd't be as expensive.

Mr. Laz
03-30-2012, 12:50 PM
#6 to #2 cost a fortune for the Skins.

#11 to #3 probably wouldn't be quite as expensive, but not just a 2nd round pick.
the skins paid that much because of the player, not the number of spots.


either way ... don't care enough to argue about it.

Coogs
03-30-2012, 12:55 PM
Going from 11 to say 7 woulnd't be as expensive.

250 points by the trade chart thing. Our 3rd and 5th is right at that number.

Coogs
03-30-2012, 12:56 PM
the skins paid that much because of the player, not the number of spots.


either way ... don't care enough to argue about it.

Who's arguing? :shrug:

O.city
03-30-2012, 12:58 PM
I would probably have a conversation with the Jags before the draft. Have a deal in place incase the Browns don't take the pick, if you like Tannehill enough.


Or just wait and see if he falls to you.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 12:58 PM
I like Stanzi as much as the next guy. But there was a reason he was a 5th rounder.


If you are taking Tannehill at 11, it's saying you really like him as a prospect and he is gonna be your future.


I like Stanzi as a prospect but either him or Quinn become expendable.

Look at the money.

Stanzi is under contract 3 years and cheap.

Quinn is on a 1 year deal.

Quinn would have to perform like a golden god and Stanzi would have to totally shit the bed for the team to cut Stanzi and sign Quinn long term to be the backup.

O.city
03-30-2012, 12:59 PM
Thats why I said him or Quinn are expendable. Quinn is also very cheap.


You could keep Quinn to be the backup for 1 year while Tannehill sits. Then next year, you can roll with Tannehill and sever ties with Quinn.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 01:02 PM
Mayock damn near dropped to his knees and gave Tanehill a blowjob after his proday.

O.city
03-30-2012, 01:06 PM
Do we have any A&*M fans on the board that can tell us about the guy.

htismaqe
03-30-2012, 01:20 PM
Mayock damn near dropped to his knees and gave Tanehill a blowjob after his proday.

McShay had similarly high praise.

Coogs
03-30-2012, 01:21 PM
I would probably have a conversation with the Jags before the draft. Have a deal in place incase the Browns don't take the pick, if you like Tannehill enough.


Or just wait and see if he falls to you.


Kind of like a big game of Texas Hold'em. If after the personal workout is over, and Tannehill is on our radar, I would rather we push the chips in the pile and move up, rather than stand pat at 11 and hope. Just me though.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 01:52 PM
I HATE that I didn't watch any full games of his and therefore have to be on the fence on this one. I generally like to have a firm stance.

That said, I generally have similar stances to Mayock on guys I've seen a lot of...so I'm gonna go ahead and be "blindly bold" and say that I'd sacrifice a pick to move up to 6 or 7 to take Tanehill if he falls past Cleveland.

If we don't make a bold move, we are gonna get stuck with either Cassel, or worse...Landry Jones for a long time.

Give our first and second for Tanehill at 6 or 7 and then take Chapman in the third and use the rest to draft value and quality depth.

Let's roll!

philfree
03-30-2012, 01:55 PM
McShay had similarly high praise.

Seems like most everyone walked away impressed.

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 01:57 PM
People are advocating for Tannehill, which is fine, but would these same people want to put together a trade package for Jake Locker?

These are two comparable players in a lot of ways. Not possible to love Tannehill but hate Locker. Well, it's possible, but it would make zero sense.

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 01:58 PM
McShay had similarly high praise.

About Mayock's...um...skills or Tannehill's?

BossChief
03-30-2012, 02:02 PM
People are advocating for Tannehill, which is fine, but would these same people want to put together a trade package for Jake Locker?

These are two comparable players in a lot of ways. Not possible to love Tannehill but hate Locker. Well, it's possible, but it would make zero sense.

I'm huge fan of Lockers, but Tanehill is far more accurate and that's a huge factor in our offense.

I'd trade for him.

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 02:08 PM
I'm huge fan of Lockers, but Tanehill is far more accurate and that's a huge factor in our offense.

I'd trade for him.

I don't think that's the case at all, and I've seen Tannehill play several games. Accuracy is absolutely a concern with this player, and scouting reports point this out, too.

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 02:09 PM
Anyway, one of the positives that I don't want to see on a breakdown of any first-round QB is "quality WR."

Um, OK.

whoman69
03-30-2012, 02:30 PM
Thats why I said him or Quinn are expendable. Quinn is also very cheap.


You could keep Quinn to be the backup for 1 year while Tannehill sits. Then next year, you can roll with Tannehill and sever ties with Quinn.

Quinn is not expendable because he is the only backup this year with real NFL experience.

Mr. Laz
03-30-2012, 02:35 PM
Quinn is not expendable because he is the only backup this year with real NFL experience.
we played last year with Palko as THE backup

what difference does that make

Cassel > Stanzi > Tannehill

Hopefully one of the young guys win the battle and Cassel is our experienced backup.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 02:46 PM
Tanehill would be "red-shirted" and Cassel would be in his last year in KC.

durtyrute
03-30-2012, 03:09 PM
73 pages about a QB turned WR turned QB. Great QB's don't end up being WR's.....


EVAR

Chocolate Hog
03-30-2012, 04:43 PM
People are advocating for Tannehill, which is fine, but would these same people want to put together a trade package for Jake Locker?

These are two comparable players in a lot of ways. Not possible to love Tannehill but hate Locker. Well, it's possible, but it would make zero sense.

Tannehill is a better passer and Locker isn't on the trade block.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 05:03 PM
Evan Silva ‏ @evansilva Close
Sounds like #Rams would love to trade down again in the draft, out of No. 6 spot to get more picks

O.city
03-30-2012, 05:04 PM
Give them our 2?

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 05:06 PM
http://www.nfl.com/videos/auto/09000d5d827f5d10/Tannehill-pro-day-report

BossChief
03-30-2012, 05:34 PM
Give them our 2?

Yes

This team can absorb the sunk cost if it doesn't work and if it does, we are contenders for a decade.

No question you make that move.

whoman69
03-30-2012, 05:37 PM
we played last year with Palko as THE backup

what difference does that make

Cassel > Stanzi > Tannehill

Hopefully one of the young guys win the battle and Cassel is our experienced backup.

How did that Palko as the backup work out?

evolve27
03-30-2012, 06:01 PM
Yes

This team can absorb the sunk cost if it doesn't work and if it does, we are contenders for a decade.

No question you make that move.

I also say it is well worth the risk. QB driven league, simply put. Everyone knows that.

O.city
03-30-2012, 06:11 PM
Do we have any tape of Tannehill on CP?

evolve27
03-30-2012, 06:14 PM
Do we have any tape of Tannehill on CP?

Probably YouTube game footage. I just watched some of Kirk Cousins game footage, and to me the guy looks solid. Sooo ready for a QB to lead this franchise through the playoffs. Let alone a SB.

Dave Lane
03-30-2012, 06:22 PM
@MaryKayCabot espn's todd mcshay "i don't think the difference between rg3 and tannehill is all that big"

What about between Ryan Tannehill and Ryan Lindley?

O.city
03-30-2012, 06:22 PM
If I'm remembering correctly LIndley has had a pretty bad offseason lead up.

jspchief
03-30-2012, 06:24 PM
How did that Palko as the backup work out?

What's more important, getting some young QBs on the team, or keeping Brady Quinn so we can extend our streak of mediocrity?

Mr. Laz
03-30-2012, 06:27 PM
How did that Palko as the backup work out?
that's about talent not experience


would rather force feed the young backup guys then mess around with a meaningless clipboard holder

O.city
03-30-2012, 06:30 PM
IMO, I think the RGIII/ Tannehill type guy is what the NFL is moving toward.

Cam, Rodgers type. There are always going to be the Brady esque traditional guys, but I would like to get ahead of the curve on this one.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 06:32 PM
Worst case scenario is we are exactly where we are RIGHT NOW, but without a luxury pick of a Decastro, Kueckly or Barron...and a second rounder.

The way it breaks down, would you rather have a chance at a franchise quarterback (that the draftniks rave about) or a CHANCE at two "good" players (in a best case scenario of having neither guy bust out)

For all we know, we could get Aaron Rogers instead of Aaron Curry and Dexter McCluster.

Setsuna
03-30-2012, 06:34 PM
Tannehill is this year's Gabbert. I hope yall get him and waste valuable picks on him. All you idiots wanting him higher than 11 are just absolutely stupid.

O.city
03-30-2012, 06:35 PM
I love that after 1 year of playing with no offseason and no skill position players, Jags fans are ready to be done with Gabbert.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 06:52 PM
Let's also not forget...

Haley and everything to do with the old playbook is GONE.

Daboll wants to run a "wide open offense"

Let's be real here...Cassels arm simply can't do that.

We have all seen what happens when he tries to throw more than 15 yards.

The team has tried to get Manning, said we wouldn't rule out trading up in the draft, Romeo said something about moving up for RG3 at the combine, Romeo said "Cassel is the starter until we get another quarterback on the roster" at the combine.

Now, they have not only interviewed Tanehill twice, they have also had a private workout with him.

I think they really like him and see this as our last chance at upgrading at quarterback this offseason and will probably try to make a move for him.

The question right now is...is that move

staying at 11 and hoping he falls

or

Trading up (within reason) for him

If it were me I'd move up, but only at a max investment of our first and second round picks to do so.

I'm not interested in using future picks or going too far with this, but I think giving up our second rounder to move up is within reason.

philfree
03-30-2012, 06:52 PM
I love that after 1 year of playing with no offseason and no skill position players, Jags fans are ready to be done with Gabbert.

Threw him to the wolves.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 06:54 PM
Tannehill is this year's Gabbert. I hope yall get him and waste valuable picks on him. All you idiots wanting him higher than 11 are just absolutely stupid.

Dude, you have no place to call anyone on this board stupid.

Mr. Laz
03-30-2012, 07:02 PM
Dude, you have no place to call anyone on this board stupid.
You have to admit that Chiefs fans opinions about QB prospects have to be influenced a little bit by desperation.

O.city
03-30-2012, 07:10 PM
Yeah we are all desperate for a qb.



I don't think there is any question that Tannehill is no lock. I just wanna take a chance on the guy.

I wasn't big on him to start, but after all that I've read and seen, I think taking a flyer on him wouldn't be the worst decision.

Mr. Laz
03-30-2012, 07:19 PM
Yeah we are all desperate for a qb.

I don't think there is any question that Tannehill is no lock. I just wanna take a chance on the guy.

I wasn't big on him to start, but after all that I've read and seen, I think taking a flyer on him wouldn't be the worst decision.
It would be very exciting for everyone if the Chiefs did select him.

I still think in a normal year he would be selected in the middle of round 2 though.

O.city
03-30-2012, 07:20 PM
With his experience, probably.


However, I think if he would have played more games, he could have been justified at where he will be picked.

Mr. Laz
03-30-2012, 07:23 PM
With his experience, probably.

However, I think if he would have played more games, he could have been justified at where he will be picked.
maybe or he would prove that he wasn't worth the pick.

The NBA drafts on potential all the time. If somebody takes Tannehill in the 1st round they will be doing the same thing.

high risk, high reward

Fruit Ninja
03-30-2012, 07:24 PM
Yeah we are all desperate for a qb.



I don't think there is any question that Tannehill is no lock. I just wanna take a chance on the guy.

I wasn't big on him to start, but after all that I've read and seen, I think taking a flyer on him wouldn't be the worst decision.

Me either, but we gotta do it eventually, qb's all move up on draft day. Its time to take a shot. We been saying it. Ill say it this year, and ill say it next year if we dont do it this year.

WE are the ONLY team left in the NFL that hasnt taken a QB in the first round in like 25 years. One team that hasnt done it. The Chiefs. Its time.

O.city
03-30-2012, 07:24 PM
maybe or he would prove that he wasn't worth the pick.

The NBA drafts on potential all the time. If somebody takes Tannehill in the 1st round they will be doing the same thing.

high risk, high reward

Very much so.


However, IMO, for a franchise qb the risk is worth the reward.

O.city
03-30-2012, 07:25 PM
Thing about taking Tannehill is that the fanbase is gonna have to be extremely patient with him.



Even when he does get on the field, we still have to be patient. He's gonna have to grow into the spot. Same with all the other qbs that get picked.

Mr. Laz
03-30-2012, 07:29 PM
Thing about taking Tannehill is that the fanbase is gonna have to be extremely patient with him.



ROFLROFLROFLROFL

Fruit Ninja
03-30-2012, 07:31 PM
Fan Base wont know how to react. Its not happened in a long time. lol

O.city
03-30-2012, 07:34 PM
I don't see that happening.

TEX
03-30-2012, 07:36 PM
Me either, but we gotta do it eventually, qb's all move up on draft day. Its time to take a shot. We been saying it. Ill say it this year, and ill say it next year if we dont do it this year.

WE are the ONLY team left in the NFL that hasnt taken a QB in the first round in like 25 years. One team that hasnt done it. The Chiefs. Its time.

NOT with THIS guy...

whoman69
03-30-2012, 07:36 PM
maybe or he would prove that he wasn't worth the pick.

The NBA drafts on potential all the time. If somebody takes Tannehill in the 1st round they will be doing the same thing.

high risk, high reward

NBA is a hell of a lot different. They're drafting freshman.

Bewbies
03-30-2012, 07:39 PM
NOT with THIS guy...

I agree, it's always better to wait for next year.

O.city
03-30-2012, 07:40 PM
I really wish the Dolphins would have gotten Orton.

Frankie
03-30-2012, 08:11 PM
Drafting Tannehill at 11 isn't any worse than taking Poe, Brockers, Keuchly or even DeCastro.

But he's still a reach and huge gamble.We have enough positions filled that we can now think about gambling with the 1st rounder. In a Perfect world we would get to trade down some; pick up some extra picks and still draft Tannehill at value. But at this point I could live with Tannehill at 11. I totally agree with your first sentence.

maybe but only if Pioli really thinks he's the guy ... also depends on Stanzi.

Is Stanzi riding the bench to develop or because they think he sucks?I liked what I saw of Stanzi in the preseason. But I have a feeling that Pioli picked him with a late pick as a favor to his friend Kirk Ferentz and is not really planning to give him a fair chance. :(

He's a pro system QB as much as Sam Bradford is a pro system QB.Wrong. Almost all of Bradford's snaps were from the spread.

Realistically, it's Tanehill this year or Landry Jones next year.given those choices I'd take Tannehill.

Tannehill being a bust wouldn't set this franchise back 10 years.No it won't. No more than any other player we pick in the 1st.

If Tann is there at 11 and you dont get some crazy trade offer, then you take him. Dont trade up for him. I think he will be there at 11.Totally this.

I keep asking and get no answer.

If we pass on the chance at Tanehill, when/how are we supposed to draft a quarterback?If he's available at 11 and we do pass on him, I'm hoping we totally trade away our 1st pick this year for someone's 1st next year and other picks. that should give us ammo next year to trade up for one of the QBs coming up.

If you take Tannehill, let Stanzi walk or put him on the practice squad.WHAT IS THIS HATE ON STANZI?!!! The man looked very promising in the preseason last year. Certainly better than Cassel.

Quinn and Quinn are both disposable. Particularly Quinn.FYP

No you don't. You make them compete and you hope Stanzi out plays Quinn and Cassel.

Cassel can start the season and Stanzi can be the #2 and Tannehill rides pine for at least half a year. In the end it'd be great to have both young guys pan out. Who knows maybe we could trade Stanzi for a 2nd round pick in a year or so down the road. Or who knows maybe Stanzi becomes the guy and we can trade Tannehill and get our first round pick back a few years down the road.Absolutely.

I like Ryan Lindley as the same guy as Tannehill minus the speed. I'd hate to lose Stanzi to get a guy with the same ceiling.Lindley is way less accurate too.

If we could somehow get our hands on Tannehill, I'd go with Stanzi and him behind Cassel.Now you are coming around to the truth.

Why should we want him at #11 if his own college coach doesnt want him a few picks before us?? If he makes it to us, there is a reason for itSherman will only have a vote in the war room. The final decision is made by the HC and the GM.

73 pages about a QB turned WR turned QB. Great QB's don't end up being WR's.....They do when they are great athletes and the circumstances ask him to.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 08:19 PM
Could you imagine the Dolphins fan base if we jumped the shark and moved up in front of them and took Tanehill?

haha

rico
03-30-2012, 08:32 PM
Could you imagine the Dolphins fan base if we jumped the shark and moved up in front of them and took Tanehill?

haha

From what I've observed on their boards, the majority of Dolphins fans (who post on message boards anyways) are hoping the Browns select him and they take a QB later on. Weeden's name pops up a lot.

Mr. Laz
03-30-2012, 08:33 PM
NBA is a hell of a lot different. They're drafting freshman.

it's still the same concept ... drafting based on potential more than production.

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 08:39 PM
Thing about taking Tannehill is that the fanbase is gonna have to be extremely patient with him.



Even when he does get on the field, we still have to be patient. He's gonna have to grow into the spot. Same with all the other qbs that get picked.

There are plenty of people shitting all over QBs drafted last year who didn't have Pro-Bowl caliber rookie seasons. Patience? Hardly.

The people who are the most vehement Cassel critics will ironically be the biggest defenders of a legit QBOTF, should we ever be fortunate enough to get one. Meanwhile, True Fans will be starting Cassel apology threads the first time said rookie has a terrible game, which inevitably will happen, likely several times.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 08:44 PM
Does anyone have a list of all the 1st rnd selections made during Pioli's tenure dating back to his time with the Ravens?

Chocolate Hog
03-30-2012, 08:46 PM
Could you imagine the Dolphins fan base if we jumped the shark and moved up in front of them and took Tanehill?

haha

The Dolphins have fans?

BossChief
03-30-2012, 08:51 PM
Just like I said with Sanchez (even though I didnt want any part of drafting him at the time)

I will basically disregard all of his bad games in his first year starting (which would be in 2013) trying to focus on flashed ability and not holding him too responsible for all the mistakes he absolutely will make.

Year two, I expect to see progress, not regression. Baby steps. All I would be looking for is for him to not repeat identical mistakes. Stuff GoChiefs would post in Gifd up would not be tolerated except on occasion. Mistakes should be cut down and the effectiveness of him as a passer should be evident.

Year 3, I will expect him to put it all together and have a good year, showing his potential in almost every game.

Year 4, superbowl or bust.

Basically, I wouldnt expect much from him (on the field) at all the next two years.

O.city
03-30-2012, 08:53 PM
Best thing about taking him if he makes it to 11, is that you can put a really damn good team around him.


He can lean on the run for a few years and rely on the d until he gets his feet wet.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 08:54 PM
There are plenty of people shitting all over QBs drafted last year who didn't have Pro-Bowl caliber rookie seasons. Patience? Hardly.

The people who are the most vehement Cassel critics will ironically be the biggest defenders of a legit QBOTF, should we ever be fortunate enough to get one. Meanwhile, True Fans will be starting Cassel apology threads the first time said rookie has a terrible game, which inevitably will happen, likely several times.

Question:

You were so high on Gabbert because of his tools and potential...but are seemingly not with the same opinion of Tanehill.

I see them as fairly similar players, Gabbert maybe has a little stronger of an arm....but they both have similar knocks on them.

Why don't you like Tanehill? (even though you acknowledged that you would back his drafting)

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 08:55 PM
What is the highest Pioli has ever drafted a QB?

O.city
03-30-2012, 08:55 PM
I'd go one farther than you Boss. I'd give the guy 3 years. If by the end of his third season, he isn't the guy, move on.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 08:57 PM
Best thing about taking him if he makes it to 11, is that you can put a really damn good team around him.


He can lean on the run for a few years and rely on the d until he gets his feet wet.

The hardest thing IMO would be emphasizing to him EVERY DAY to protect the ball, while continuing to attack with it and not suppressing his play-making ability.

Chocolate Hog
03-30-2012, 08:58 PM
What is the highest Pioli has ever drafted a QB?

Kevin O'Connell 3rd round

O.city
03-30-2012, 08:59 PM
The hardest thing IMO would be emphasizing to him EVERY DAY to protect the ball, while continuing to attack with it and not suppressing his play-making ability.

I don't know that I would preach ball protection.


If he's gonna learn, he needs to do it while being under the gun.

BIG K
03-30-2012, 08:59 PM
Best thing about taking him if he makes it to 11, is that you can put a really damn good team around him.


He can lean on the run for a few years and rely on the d until he gets his feet wet.

I agree with taking him at #11 and taking a huge chance on him. Ironically though, your post almost sounds like the FO talking about #7.........:)

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 08:59 PM
Kevin O'Connell 3rd round

****.

O.city
03-30-2012, 09:00 PM
I agree with taking him at #11 and taking a huge chance on him. Ironically though, your post almost sounds like the FO talking about #7.........:)

Yeah, difference is one is a rookie 23 year old. The other is a 30 year old 4th year starter.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 09:14 PM
Kevin O'Connell 3rd round

****.

Thats not bad news at all.

He spent a 3rd rounder on a quarterback EVEN THOUGH HE HAD A HOF QB ALREADY.

Parcells drafted a quarterback 1st overall (Bledsoe) and in his first year with the Giants they took Phil Simms 7th overall.

Remember, thats who all these guys are trying to emulate.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 09:17 PM
We're going to draft Cousins.

FML.

BIG K
03-30-2012, 09:18 PM
Yeah, difference is one is a rookie 23 year old. The other is a 30 year old 4th year starter.

And going into the 2012 season, they both require another 2-3 years of development. The 'difference' really is, one has room for improvement, one does not, and one will paid $60 mill to 'develop' and the other will be given rookie money to develop.....

Setsuna
03-30-2012, 09:21 PM
It would be very exciting for everyone if the Chiefs did select him.

I still think in a normal year he would be selected in the middle of round 2 though.

I'm not saying don't get him at 11. But to trade up? That's where I can't believe anyone suggesting that is competent.

aturnis
03-30-2012, 09:28 PM
We're going to draft Cousins.

FML.

Thank god. Could you imagine if we wasted a top 11 pick or more on a guy who's ceiling isn't even Flacco?

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 09:31 PM
Thank god. Could you imagine if we wasted a top 11 pick or more on a guy who's ceiling isn't even Flacco?

Where are you getting that?

BossChief
03-30-2012, 09:32 PM
I'm not saying don't get him at 11. But to trade up? That's where I can't believe anyone suggesting that is competent.

Supply and demand mixed with risk/reward mixed with urgency mixed with a little purple haze.

Anyway, you said all you needed to say when you shit on Gabbert after one year.

Do us all a favor so that you can understand how little a rookie quarterbacks first years production means to his overall career.

Go list ALL of the HOF QBs and then list all of their win loss ratios their rookie years.

I bet the average is less than 3 wins.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 09:36 PM
Thank god. Could you imagine if we wasted a top 11 pick or more on a guy who's ceiling isn't even Flacco?

Mayock listed Joe Flacco as a guy Tanehill is farther along than at the same point.

Flacco is about to get PAID.

Tanehill would walk in here with a similar situation, except the stars on THIS defense arent even in their prime yet (except Hali and DJ)

That said, after Tanehill....the rest of this QB class cant hold Stanzis jock strap.

Id rather pass on the rest and just roll with what we have and continue to build the roster.

O.city
03-30-2012, 09:38 PM
One thing I really like about Tannehill is his throwing motion.

BIG K
03-30-2012, 09:41 PM
Mayock listed Joe Flacco as a guy Tanehill is farther along than at the same point.

Flacco is about to get PAID.

Tanehill would walk in here with a similar situation, except the stars on THIS defense arent even in their prime yet (except Hali and DJ)

That said, after Tanehill....the rest of this QB class cant hold Stanzis jock strap.

Id rather pass on the rest and just roll with what we have and continue to build the roster.

Shit. Sorry, can you explain this post? Not sure one way or the other...

BossChief
03-30-2012, 09:51 PM
What parts do you want clarified?

BIG K
03-30-2012, 10:07 PM
What parts do you want clarified?

Seriously? No disrespect but, can you clarify you first sentence? I have no idea what side of the fence you are on this one......your statements move all over.....

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 10:09 PM
Question:

You were so high on Gabbert because of his tools and potential...but are seemingly not with the same opinion of Tanehill.

I see them as fairly similar players, Gabbert maybe has a little stronger of an arm....but they both have similar knocks on them.

Why don't you like Tanehill? (even though you acknowledged that you would back his drafting)

Gabbert is a QB who should not have been playing last year, and he's being unfairly criticized because he was thrust into a shit situation. Few players have his elite combination of size, athleticism, and arm strength, and Tannehill is not on this level.

Though Gabbert was raw, Tannehill is even more so, which makes me particularly wary. Additionally, I saw Gabbert step up and make big time plays in big time situations (OU), and all of the intangibles are there.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 10:23 PM
Seriously? No disrespect but, can you clarify you first sentence? I have no idea what side of the fence you are on this one......your statements move all over.....

Mayock went on NFLN and said that Tannehill is farther along than Flacco was at this point of time before the draft and that he is gonna be a better player.

I wasnt offering an opinion, I was making a statement.

If you want my take on it, my stance on the kid is that I would give up our 11 and our second rounder if thats what it takes to get him.

That is probably the lowest investment it would take to draft a potential franchise quarterback any time in the next couple drafts, and with the supply/demand and risk/reward I think thats realistic.

Again though, I (admittedly) haven't even seen a whole game of his and am basing that on the takes of guys like Mayock who I usually see eye to eye with on prospects I have seen play a lot...so there is an element of trust I am going off.

Gabbert is a QB who should not have been playing last year, and he's being unfairly criticized because he was thrust into a shit situation. Few players have his elite combination of size, athleticism, and arm strength, and Tannehill is not on this level.

Though Gabbert was raw, Tannehill is even more so, which makes me particularly wary. Additionally, I saw Gabbert step up and make big time plays in big time situations (OU), and all of the intangibles are there.

Cmon man.

Gabbert was inaccurate, didnt have good poise, was a full blown spread monkey.

FFS he ran a spread offense and completed what? 55% of his throws?

You cant sit there and say that he was an accurate passer with a straight face, can you?

If he has good intangibles, how come the team around him didnt ever step up for him?

He was an inaccurate passer that had a strong arm and was mobile and lacked experience in a pro style offense.

Tanehill might not have as strong an arm, but he seems to be on the same level according to guys like Mayock and McShay.

I totally agree that he was a passer that needed to sit a year and I probably have 10 or more posts from back before the draft that say exactly that.

We see eye to eye a lot on here, but on this we can probably just agree to disagree.

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 10:31 PM
Cmon man.

Gabbert was inaccurate, didnt have good poise, was a full blown spread monkey.

FFS he ran a spread offense and completed what? 55% of his throws?

You cant sit there and say that he was an accurate passer with a straight face, can you?

If he has good intangibles, how come the team around him didnt ever step up for him?

He was an inaccurate passer that had a strong arm and was mobile and lacked experience in a pro style offense.

Tanehill might not have as strong an arm, but he seems to be on the same level according to guys like Mayock and McShay.

I totally agree that he was a passer that needed to sit a year and I probably have 10 or more posts from back before the draft that say exactly that.

We see eye to eye a lot on here, but on this we can probably just agree to disagree.

I don't give a single fuck if you don't like Gabbert as a prospect; I couldn't be right most of the time if others weren't wrong.

All QBs regress when pressured, even the greats like Manning and Brady. And you wanted nothing of the former, right?

Spread monkey? Sorry, that "damning" evidence has to be reconsidered due to more recent evidence. I have no doubt that I have several posts on this site with similar concerns, but if we're not checking our opinions and admitting mistakes, we're not evolving. Ironic monkey reference time.

Finally, if you're claiming that the team around Gabbert never "stepped up for him," you simply didn't watch this player in college. I saw damn near every single snap that he ever took, and this is a non-issue. If Gabbert and Smith return for their senior seasons, what do you think that Missouri team looks like? Exactly.

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 10:51 PM
I've seen Tannehill play 5-6 games, so I'm certainly not an "expert" on this player, but he's also not someone for whom I don't have a frame of reference. Bottom line: his draft stock is greatly accelerated by the fact that this is a QB-driven league.

He's talented, intriguing, and ultra-raw. This is not the type of player you go balls deep for in a draft.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 10:52 PM
Actually, I did like him but acknowledged that he would be a pretty big project...similar to RT.

I even said (in your gabbert thread iirc) that I would rather take Gabbert in the first over Stanzi in the second. Honestly, I think Gabbert has a lower floor but a much higher ceiling *EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION* to Tanehill.

I would probably give up a couple picks if they want him gone in Jacksonville before I would take Tanehill, but thats not happening.

Red flags for Gabbert that I saw from the first game I watched of his (and I probably watched somewhere between 8-10 games of his)

poor accuracy and poise
not the best decision maker
lacks all the experience of footwork and mechanics of a pro quarterback
questionable intangibles.

I guess I see Gabbert how you see Stanzi...as an outsider and there is nothing wrong with that.

Sometimes thats the only way to see the real player.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 10:56 PM
I've seen Tannehill play 5-6 games, so I'm certainly not an "expert" on this player, but he's also not someone for whom I don't have a frame of reference. Bottom line: his draft stock is greatly accelerated by the fact that this is a QB-driven league.

He's talented, intriguing, and ultra-raw. This is not the type of player you go balls deep for in a draft.

As I have said, I am basing a lot of my thoughts on this subject on the fact that I almost always see eye to eye with Mayock over any other pundit out there so I am trusting his word when he says he is worth a top 5 pick.

The guy almost dropped to the ground and gave him a blowjob after his proday.

I should link that video...

BossChief
03-30-2012, 11:02 PM
Honest question.

Who do you see as having the edge in these areas?

Accuracy
Poise
Arm strength
decision making
ability to avoid the rush
ability to protect the ball
ability to raise the level of play of those around them (intangibles)
Big play ability

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 11:03 PM
I guess I see Gabbert how you see Stanzi...as an outsider and there is nothing wrong with that.

Sometimes thats the only way to see the real player.

Fair enough, dude. My argument about Gabbert has always been that he could be a more athletic version of Roethlisberger. Hell, on this site Big Rape isn't even considered a franchise QB by some...

Given our draft options, I'd be totally cool with drafting Tannehill at #11. Wouldn't even flinch if we traded up. However, I just cannot say, based on what I've seen myself, that I have complete confidence that he "can" develop into a franchise QB. I believe, 100%, that Gabbert "can." Might not, but I think that he can.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 11:24 PM
I know I havent seen full games, but I have seen parts of games here and there and have watched lots of youtube videos that show "all of his throws in a game" and I see a guy that has the arm and mobility/poise to extend plays and allow them to develop into bigger ones the same as I saw with Big Ben in college and to this day.

I see Tanehill routinely using his mobility to buy time for the pass and doesn't try to run with it till that's the last resort and thats what has me somewhat sold on him and his ability to make it in the NFL with the weapons we have in house.

I guess I just see Tanehill as VERY similar to Gabbert in the way he plays and think both styles translate to the NFL quite well.

One things for sure with Gabbert, next year will probably define him as a starter in this league. He was in a horrible situation last year, but next year will be better and he needs to show that his intangibles are good enough to raise the level of play around him if he is to ever be a franchise quarterback.

If he doesnt show that ability, the gun will be cocked and ready to fire.

Sooner rather than later, Gabbert needs to turn that franchise around if he is to be thought of as a franchise quarterback in the future.

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 11:26 PM
Deez, pick a qb drafted in the last 3 years, that you would draft in the first round.

Stafford. No brainer. Sanchez. Openly and often advocated for that player. Newton. Gabbert. Ponder.

Completely whiffed on Bradford and Freeman, two players who well might end up being better than everyone listed above not named Stafford--who is a fucking stud.

By the way, CP wanted nothing to do with Stafford when he was thought to be a realistic possibility.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 11:28 PM
Lots of us (deez included) also went down with the USS Clausen at 5.

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 11:29 PM
If year two defines any rookie QB, that's a pretty fucking tough standard. Unrealistic in my opinion.

If this franchise ever drafts a legit QBOTF, that player must be given three full years to develop. In this period, I believe a more likely trajectory is: 1. Flashes in year one. 2. Some regression in year two--commonly referred to as the "sophomore slump" in baseball terms. 3. Big step forward in year three.

The QB who is really on the clock this season is Sanchez; he needs to take a couple of steps forward, actually. QBs drafted in '11 shouldn't reasonably be expected to "arrive" yet, particularly a player like Gabbert who shouldn't have been playing at all last year.

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 11:32 PM
Lots of us (deez included) also went down with the USS Clausen at 5.

True, I wanted Clausen. But what the fuck? The book has been written on this player? He's a "bust"?

This shit is absolutely ridiculous. QB doesn't have immediate success in a fucking travesty of a situation? Bust.

If this is the mindset, this fan base will never tolerate a true QBOTF. Never. As I said in another post, if Pioil continues to avoid the QB position, he might not be able to evalute it, but he sure as fuck can evaluate this fan base.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 11:35 PM
True, I wanted Clausen. But what the ****? The book has been written on this player? He's a "bust"?

This shit is absolutely ridiculous. QB doesn't have immediate success in a ****ing travesty of a situation? Bust.


Brady Quinn?

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 11:39 PM
Brady Quinn?

Perhaps. Wouldn't be the first.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-30-2012, 11:40 PM
Perhaps. Wouldn't be the first.

That's the spirit! :clap:

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 11:42 PM
Out of all those guys do you see any of them willing a SB to their team? Do you see them pulling a Rothlesberger, or Eli, or Rogers?

Rothlisberger's early success has completely warped perspectives.

Eli? The same QB considered a bust/massively overrated by many prior to even this last season? Rodgers? The same QB whose ass accumulated substantial splinters by sitting behind Favre, when many on this board believe that first-round QBs should play year one?

I don't have a crystal ball. An organization simply has to identify a skill set and take a chance, something the Chiefs have been too pussy to do since '83, which is fucking embarrassing.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 11:44 PM
Here is what I would expect from Tanehill
Just like I said with Sanchez (even though I didnt want any part of drafting him at the time)

I will basically disregard all of his bad games in his first year starting (which would be in 2013) trying to focus on flashed ability and not holding him too responsible for all the mistakes he absolutely will make.

Year two, I expect to see progress, not regression. Baby steps. All I would be looking for is for him to not repeat identical mistakes. Stuff GoChiefs would post in Gifd up would not be tolerated except on occasion. Mistakes should be cut down and the effectiveness of him as a passer should be evident.

Year 3, I will expect him to put it all together and have a good year, showing his potential in almost every game.

Year 4, superbowl or bust.

Basically, I wouldnt expect much from him (on the field) at all the next two years.

True, I wanted Clausen. But what the fuck? The book has been written on this player? He's a "bust"?

This shit is absolutely ridiculous. QB doesn't have immediate success in a fucking travesty of a situation? Bust.

If this is the mindset, this fan base will never tolerate a true QBOTF. Never. As I said in another post, if Pioil continues to avoid the QB position, he might not be able to evalute it, but he sure as fuck can evaluate this fan base.
I never said he was a bust at all. Just wanted him included with the rest of the busts on your list (not including Cam and Stafford) wink wink

of course, Im joking.

Id send a pick to Carolina for Clausen right now before I would have signed Quinn, thats for sure.

We probably could have gotten him for a 5th rounder...and I advocated that on here as well...and was laughed at for my efforts.

Very telling if you ask me.

DeezNutz
03-30-2012, 11:48 PM
Very telling if you ask me.

No shit.

BossChief
03-30-2012, 11:48 PM
Rothlisberger's early success has completely warped perspectives.

Eli? The same QB considered a bust/massively overrated by many prior to even this last season? Rodgers? The same QB whose ass accumulated substantial splinters by sitting behind Favre, when many on this board believe that first-round QBs should play year one?

I don't have a crystal ball. An organization simply has to identify a skill set and take a chance, something the Chiefs have been too pussy to do since '83, which is fucking embarrassing.

:clap:

Also to note, Aaron Rodgers only started 22 college games and was a Tedford qb.

Tanehill started 20 games and used to play receiver (though he practiced as a quarterback)

Tanehill has the same type of escapability/mobility and even though the arm isnt quite as strong, its in the same ballpark form what Ive seen....surely strong enough to play the same type of game at this level if he is able to develop.

Setsuna
03-31-2012, 12:21 AM
Supply and demand mixed with risk/reward mixed with urgency mixed with a little purple haze.

Anyway, you said all you needed to say when you shit on Gabbert after one year.

Do us all a favor so that you can understand how little a rookie quarterbacks first years production means to his overall career.

Go list ALL of the HOF QBs and then list all of their win loss ratios their rookie years.

I bet the average is less than 3 wins.
Honestly dude. You can't tell me, despite him being thrown to the wolves, he had absolutely zero pocket presence and he is scared to get hit. Stop praising his attributes and see what we all see. But then again I bet you didn't watch one Jag game since they became a franchise. So you kindly shut your damn mouth about crap you don't know about. College is over. This is the pros.

Chocolate Hog
03-31-2012, 01:14 AM
We're going to draft Cousins.

FML.

I'll say this about Cousins: I paid a lot of attention to the B1G 10 this year obviously and I don't understand all the Cousins hate. He was a pretty good QB on a team that's overachieved the last few years.

milkman
03-31-2012, 08:21 AM
Here is what I would expect from Tanehill



I never said he was a bust at all. Just wanted him included with the rest of the busts on your list (not including Cam and Stafford) wink wink

of course, Im joking.

Id send a pick to Carolina for Clausen right now before I would have signed Quinn, thats for sure.

We probably could have gotten him for a 5th rounder...and I advocated that on here as well...and was laughed at for my efforts.

Very telling if you ask me.

I guess your perspective on a particular player in the NFL is shaped by how you viewed them as players coming into the NFL.

I didn't like Jimmy Clausen coming into the draft, and after his rookie season, when he didn't show anything to suggest that I was wrong about him, I wouldn't trade a bucket of warm shit for him.

Mr_Tomahawk
03-31-2012, 08:25 AM
I guess your perspective on a particular player in the NFL is shaped by how you viewed them as players coming into the NFL.

I didn't like Jimmy Clausen coming into the draft, and after his rookie season, when he didn't show anything to suggest that I was wrong about him, I wouldn't trade a bucket of warm shit for him.

This.

People put too much into the "systems" QBs play in during school and how many games they have started...

Some people learn quicker than others...others sometime never learn as quick.

58-4ever
03-31-2012, 08:41 AM
Rothlisberger's early success has completely warped perspectives.




You can add the early success of Dalton and Newton too. Some guys are ready to compete right away, some are not. I don't think we can wait 4-5 years though. Many of our best players are in their prime now.

Coogs
03-31-2012, 09:12 AM
Evan Silva ‏ @evansilva Close
Sounds like #Rams would love to trade down again in the draft, out of No. 6 spot to get more picks

This is what I was talking about. It's up to the FO to due their due diligence with Tannehill, and it sounds like they are, and make the proper call. If he has the potential to be a franchise QB, then the parameters of a trade up with the Rams on what would have to be a draft day trade (Tannehill has to get by Cleveland) probably need to be discussed with the Rams. I say that, because if he has franchise QB potential, then IMO, you don't gamble on him not only going past Cleveland, but Miami too. And if his evaluations turn out to be iffy on being a franchise QB, then you see if he falls to #11, and possibly not even take him at that spot.

Mr. Laz
03-31-2012, 11:26 AM
This.

People put too much into the "systems" QBs play in during school and how many games they have started...

Some people learn quicker than others...others sometime never learn as quick.

I watched a ton of games for Clausen and he didn't looke like a system type guy to me. It wasn't dinky-dunky passes that rely on the receiver to do all the heavy lifting

Clausen could make all the throws and had nice zip and rotation on the ball. His footwork was decent and he didn't seem to panic in the pocket.

imo Clausen's problems must be between his ears because he looked the part on the field.

Dave Lane
03-31-2012, 12:13 PM
Lots of us (deez included) also went down with the USS Clausen at 5.

I liked Claussen but not at five. I was sure we'd take him with the first #2 and was pissed when we took McCluster.

beach tribe
03-31-2012, 12:30 PM
I don't know that I would preach ball protection.


If he's gonna learn, he needs to do it while being under the gun.

Yep. Encourage him to pull the trigger his first year starting so he will know what he is and isn't capable of. Like Manning did his first season while throwing 28 picks. I really think QBs will progress a lot faster with this mind set.

beach tribe
03-31-2012, 12:32 PM
I liked Claussen but not at five. I was sure we'd take him with the first #2 and was pissed when we took McCluster.
I actually was not mad we didn't pick him, because if he was worth a shit, Weis would have pushed hard enough to get him IMO. I really wish Weis was still here. He did a really good job with O if you ask me.

Chocolate Hog
03-31-2012, 03:58 PM
Yep. Encourage him to pull the trigger his first year starting so he will know what he is and isn't capable of. Like Manning did his first season while throwing 28 picks. I really think QBs will progress a lot faster with this mind set.

No you do not play Tannehill year 1. He's not ready.

chiefzilla1501
03-31-2012, 04:35 PM
I watched a ton of games for Clausen and he didn't looke like a system type guy to me. It wasn't dinky-dunky passes that rely on the receiver to do all the heavy lifting

Clausen could make all the throws and had nice zip and rotation on the ball. His footwork was decent and he didn't seem to panic in the pocket.

imo Clausen's problems must be between his ears because he looked the part on the field.

Some of it may be between the ears. But he also had mostly shit for receivers and was missing a key lineman and running back. Maybe that's his fault that he never seemed to develop chemistry with Steve Smith or maybe that's just as much on Smith as him.

Biggest point, he's a pocket QB and he had no help. His rookie season was atrocious. But I don't understand the mentality of some that 8 games defines his career and that he's garbage. The reaction of this board makes me wonder if people on this board are truly serious about giving a young QB time to develop.

DeezNutz
03-31-2012, 04:37 PM
The reaction of this board makes me wonder if people on this board are truly serious about giving a young QB time to develop.

Exactly.

O.city
03-31-2012, 04:50 PM
Some of it may be between the ears. But he also had mostly shit for receivers and was missing a key lineman and running back. Maybe that's his fault that he never seemed to develop chemistry with Steve Smith or maybe that's just as much on Smith as him.

Biggest point, he's a pocket QB and he had no help. His rookie season was atrocious. But I don't understand the mentality of some that 8 games defines his career and that he's garbage. The reaction of this board makes me wonder if people on this board are truly serious about giving a young QB time to develop.

This. Rep for this.



I kind of feel the same way for Quinn.

milkman
03-31-2012, 04:52 PM
Some of it may be between the ears. But he also had mostly shit for receivers and was missing a key lineman and running back. Maybe that's his fault that he never seemed to develop chemistry with Steve Smith or maybe that's just as much on Smith as him.

Biggest point, he's a pocket QB and he had no help. His rookie season was atrocious. But I don't understand the mentality of some that 8 games defines his career and that he's garbage. The reaction of this board makes me wonder if people on this board are truly serious about giving a young QB time to develop.

Christian Ponder had mixed results in his rookie season, but he showed some potential to build on.

Jimmy Clausen showed shit.

There's a difference between struggling and sucking ass.

Jimmy Clausen sucked ass in his rookie season.

Von Dumbass
03-31-2012, 04:54 PM
The Vikings continue to hope that the Ryan Tannehill buzz keeps flowing. After his strong pro-day effort, there is more buzz about teams having to trade up ahead of the Browns at No. 4 to get the athletic-but-green quarterback. The Vikings will be all ears — they would love to slide down a handful of spots, pick up additional picks and still get a top-rated player. It would be the ideal situation in their minds.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2012/03/31/tannehills-rising-draft-stock-music-to-vikings-ear

Nightfyre
03-31-2012, 05:01 PM
I could see Philbin being interested in moving up for Tannehill. On the other hand, the Browns won't take him so I don't know why Miami would move up for him.

Mr. Laz
03-31-2012, 05:20 PM
you guys really think that the Browns are going to flush Colt already for somebody not named Luck,RGIII or Manning?

Chief Roundup
03-31-2012, 05:37 PM
you guys really think that the Browns are going to flush Colt already for somebody not named Luck,RGIII or Manning?

No from what I heard they weren't even at his pro-day.

O.city
03-31-2012, 06:24 PM
Like I said earlier, the thing with Tannehill is that physically he has all the tools. It's gonna be a mental thing and tweeking the little things like footwork.

Pasta Giant Meatball
03-31-2012, 06:24 PM
The lack of starts concerns me, but I'd take him any day over the ILB's, G's, and C's people are salivating over.

O.city
03-31-2012, 06:27 PM
Boss has said it a few times or something like it.


Tannehill, physically is great. Good arm, good motion, very mobile, throws good on the run, good mechanics.

He just needs experience and coaching.

Pasta Giant Meatball
03-31-2012, 06:37 PM
You couldn't walk into a much better situation team talent wise as a young QB.

O.city
03-31-2012, 06:39 PM
Nope, you couldn't

I don't think he would start year 1 and probably shouldn't.

Pasta Giant Meatball
03-31-2012, 06:47 PM
A nice pair of bookend Tackles.
A dynamic RB that makes teams pay for stacking the box.
3 nice receiving options at WR.
A solid pair of TEs
An All-Pro caliber Pass Rusher and an emerging talent on the other side.
An All-Pro ILB
A bonafide number 1 corner.
A Safety with as much potential as anybody in the game.

FUUUUUU

O.city
03-31-2012, 06:50 PM
You also look at the rest of this years draft.


We can solidify the oline.


Get more playmakers on offense in the later rounds.

Get defensive depth.

Frankie
03-31-2012, 07:23 PM
This is what I was talking about. It's up to the FO to due their due diligence with Tannehill, and it sounds like they are, and make the proper call. If he has the potential to be a franchise QB, then the parameters of a trade up with the Rams on what would have to be a draft day trade (Tannehill has to get by Cleveland) probably need to be discussed with the Rams.He will get by the Browns. I like tannehill, but taking him at 4 is beyond stupid.

Like I said earlier, the thing with Tannehill is that physically he has all the tools. It's gonna be a mental thing and tweeking the little things like footwork.I think the progress he has made in 1.5 seasons is a clear indication of his mental readiness. All tools aside, it's the mental aspect of him that intrigues me.

The lack of starts concerns me, but I'd take him any day over the ILB's, G's, and C's people are salivating over.Me 2.

A nice pair of bookend Tackles.
A dynamic RB that makes teams pay for stacking the box.
3 nice receiving options at WR.
A solid pair of TEs
An All-Pro caliber Pass Rusher and an emerging talent on the other side.
An All-Pro ILB
A bonafide number 1 corner.
A Safety with as much potential as anybody in the game.

FUUUUUU:drool: OK I think I'm in love. What team is this?

jspchief
03-31-2012, 07:53 PM
KC hasn't missed on their first pick since like 2002.

Maybe they can afford to take a risk.

Chief Roundup
03-31-2012, 07:53 PM
This is what I was talking about. It's up to the FO to due their due diligence with Tannehill, and it sounds like they are, and make the proper call. If he has the potential to be a franchise QB, then the parameters of a trade up with the Rams on what would have to be a draft day trade (Tannehill has to get by Cleveland) probably need to be discussed with the Rams. I say that, because if he has franchise QB potential, then IMO, you don't gamble on him not only going past Cleveland, but Miami too. And if his evaluations turn out to be iffy on being a franchise QB, then you see if he falls to #11, and possibly not even take him at that spot.

If we want him we are going to have to trade in front of the Dolphins.
Wonder what it would take to for us to trade up from 11 to 7.

Bewbies
03-31-2012, 07:59 PM
KC hasn't missed on their first pick since like 2002.

Maybe they can afford to take a risk.

Impressive run, especially when you look back at those Vermeil days.

Frankie
03-31-2012, 08:25 PM
KC hasn't missed on their first pick since like 2002.

Depends on your definition of "missed."

morphius
03-31-2012, 08:28 PM
Depends on your definition of "missed."
Yeah, it is hard to look at Tyson Jackson as a hit by any definition.

jspchief
03-31-2012, 08:50 PM
He's been a starter from pretty much day 1. Maybe we should just keep drafting DTs in rnd 1 forever.

This team flushed almost its entire roster and rebuilt through the draft. They've had an above average run of success doing it. This team hasn't had this complete of a roster in 30+ years.

If the QB position isn't addressed, it will all have been for nothing. When do we stop making excuses?

O.city
03-31-2012, 09:28 PM
It's time..




If they think Tannehill can be the guy, do it.


Fuck if thats the case, trade up for him. I'd be fine iwht it.

O.city
03-31-2012, 10:03 PM
So if by some chance we do take this guy.



What do you do with him? Sit him behind Cassel for the whole year no matter what?


I think I'd sit him for atleast 1 year.

Setsuna
03-31-2012, 10:24 PM
It's time..




If they think Tannehill can be the guy, do it.


**** if thats the case, trade up for him. I'd be fine iwht it.

Someone talk some sense into this desperate, sad sack of a fan.

BossChief
03-31-2012, 10:28 PM
So if by some chance we do take this guy.



What do you do with him? Sit him behind Cassel for the whole year no matter what?


I think I'd sit him for atleast 1 year.

He would probably get red shirted like Stanzi did.

I don't think he would need to sit for longer than that.

If I were making the call and I thought he had half a chance to be another "Aaron Rodgers" or something similar after the workouts and interviews... I don't risk him dropping to 11.

I grab my balls and make the call to move up.

DeezNutz
03-31-2012, 11:18 PM
So if by some chance we do take this guy.



What do you do with him? Sit him behind Cassel for the whole year no matter what?


I think I'd sit him for atleast 1 year.

Sits for at least 8 games. At that point, depends upon his progression. Still trying to win, but developing Tannehill would be priority #1 of the organization.

Example: the Rat pulled the Snake when Denver could have been the playoffs. But they had no chance of a championship, so the young QB trumps all.

Fruit Ninja
03-31-2012, 11:47 PM
So if by some chance we do take this guy.



What do you do with him? Sit him behind Cassel for the whole year no matter what?


I think I'd sit him for atleast 1 year.

No, you siet him til Cassel shits the bed, then you play the kid, Just like the other qb's in recent years.

Maybe the kids has it, we dont know. I do know one thing, if we dont try, we wont ever have that qb. EVER

BossChief
04-01-2012, 12:01 AM
LOL @ us all thinking we would even take this kid at 11 if he is there.

We thought we would get Peyton. Haha

Signing Quinn was the statement that Cassel is here to stay.

We might as well not even get our hopes up.

I bet we don't even draft a quarterback this year, but it's nice to dream.

Fruit Ninja
04-01-2012, 12:09 AM
LOL @ us all thinking we would even take this kid at 11 if he is there.

We thought we would get Peyton. Haha

Signing Quinn was the statement that Cassel is here to stay.

We might as well not even get our hopes up.

I bet we don't even draft a quarterback this year, but it's nice to dream.

Here is the thing. Cassel will eventually NOT be here. Sooner or later they DO have to do something.

There will be a point where there is NOTHIng pioli can do but make a move. Remember he's has a job he has to keep. I doubt he wants to come to KC to fail.

Frankie
04-01-2012, 12:22 AM
I would take Tannehill at 11 if he's there, though IMO he's a 17th-20th pick value. That said, I'd still wanna see Stanzi given a fair chance. Nothing wrong with finding two good young QBs on our roster if we are lucky enough. One could stay and the other traded for a higher pick than we spent of him.

Chocolate Hog
04-01-2012, 12:56 AM
LOL @ us all thinking we would even take this kid at 11 if he is there.

We thought we would get Peyton. Haha

Signing Quinn was the statement that Cassel is here to stay.

We might as well not even get our hopes up.

I bet we don't even draft a quarterback this year, but it's nice to dream.

If thats true (likely is) then there's not much need to give a fuck about this season.

BossChief
04-01-2012, 01:00 AM
I can remember Romeo saying "we have a project quarterback and I dont think you need two" or something close to that when we signed Quinn.

Im intrigued by the fact that we had a private workout with RT, but I think it was probably just due diligence when I am using my head and not my hope.

Chief Roundup
04-01-2012, 08:27 AM
So what will it probably take to trade up with Jacksonville? We will have to get in front of Miami.

Chiefnj2
04-01-2012, 09:09 AM
You couldn't walk into a much better situation team talent wise as a young QB.

I guess Manning felt differently.

milkman
04-01-2012, 09:11 AM
I guess Manning felt differently.

He didn't feel young.

Coogs
04-01-2012, 09:47 AM
I can remember Romeo saying "we have a project quarterback and I dont think you need two" or something close to that when we signed Quinn.

Im intrigued by the fact that we had a private workout with RT, but I think it was probably just due diligence when I am using my head and not my hope.

I kind of like the fact that Crennel is here for this decision. He was in charge in Cleveland... when everyone thought they were going to take Quinn at #3. Obviously, Crennel didn't think enough of him to take when he was right in his lap at #3. But he did like him enough to move back up into the first round when Quinn started falling.

We have been through Quinn's nightmare over in his thread, so I won't go into that here, but it appears that Crennel could be a pretty good evaluator of QB's.

If he thinks Tannehill could be the guy, I think we make a move. If he doesn't... I don't think we do.

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-01-2012, 10:01 AM
I guess Manning felt differently.

Manning is a young QB?

Denver has more talent than KC?

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

Broke Back Bronco with Horseface was the deciding factor.

Dave Lane
04-01-2012, 10:30 AM
The lack of starts concerns me, but I'd take him any day over the ILB's, G's, and C's people are salivating over.

I think it's almost universal that everyone would accept him if he was drafted however I don't see the Chiefs moving up to get him and paying extra draft picks as a good strategy but that's just my opinion.

Dave Lane
04-01-2012, 10:32 AM
If Romeo and Scott like him I'm fully on board. I'd love to take a quarterback that has the possibility of a future but from what I've seen of Tannehills YouTube videos and games I've watched I have a really hard time believing he's going to be that guy.

Von Dumbass
04-01-2012, 10:48 AM
Hearing from people close to Ryan Tannehill that #Eagles have shown the most interest so far. #Dolphins, #Browns remain interested.

https://twitter.com/#!/nfldraftscout/status/186473793739436033

BossChief
04-01-2012, 11:00 AM
If thats true (likely is) then there's not much need to give a fuck about this season.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that every bit of this quarterback smoke has nothing at all to do with a quarterback fire.

It likely has more to do with the guidance this new PR person this Chiefs hired has offered on how to handle this situation of going into another year with Matt Cassel as the unquestioned starter.

"well, we tried" was probably the goal.

Like Ive said a couple times, it's not good enough to "just try" ...you have to try your hardest at something or it doesn't even really count.

CaliforniaChief
04-01-2012, 11:03 AM
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that every bit of this quarterback smoke has nothing at all to do with a quarterback fire.

It likely has more to do with the guidance this new PR person this Chiefs hired has offered on how to handle this situation of going into another year with Matt Cassel as the unquestioned starter.

"well, we tried" was probably the goal.


Unfortunately, this makes a ton of sense. They can say "We really wanted RG3 but the crazy Redskins outbid us." "Peyton Manning was a guy we really wanted, but he just didn't reciprocate." "We really like this Tannehill guy."

And at the end of the day, we head back to Afcasselstan for another year of mediocrity.

Okie_Apparition
04-01-2012, 11:08 AM
They kept Zorn for a reason
Even though Cassel didn't progress & Stanzi was never ready

BossChief
04-01-2012, 11:12 AM
They kept Zorn for a reason
Even though Cassel didn't progress & Stanzi was never ready

They kept Zorn because it would have made everyone that likes Cassel look like fools if he left KC for a lateral move.

Simple as that.

BossChief
04-01-2012, 11:15 AM
Is that what you were implying?...you can be a bit difficult to read sometimes.

O.city
04-01-2012, 11:16 AM
I kinda feel the way of the 8 game rule. Or until the bye week.




Shit with the team we could potentially have, I might be fine with just starting him week 1. I like what the pack did with Rodgers but IMO the best way to learn is when the bullets start flying.

Okie_Apparition
04-01-2012, 11:36 AM
Zorn was the laid back surfer
to Haley's angle dust induced rages

BossChief
04-01-2012, 11:41 AM
Zorn was the laid back surfer
to Haley's angle dust induced rages

So you are saying that you think Zorn was retained to be the good cop to Dabolls bad cop?

Is that it?

Okie_Apparition
04-01-2012, 11:55 AM
Zorn is who Cassel went & stood behind after McClain buffered himself between Todd & Matt
Zorn will be trusted with Pioli's QBotF
whoever that will be, I don't think Cassel is adored as some do

BossChief
04-01-2012, 11:59 AM
So, Daboll is gonna be "daddy" and Zorn is gonna be "mommy"

I can see that.

What quarterback do you think is most likely for us to take Okie?

Okie_Apparition
04-01-2012, 12:00 PM
I don't watch enough college ball to know
& won't pretend otherwise

BossChief
04-01-2012, 12:41 PM
I don't watch enough college ball to know
& won't pretend otherwise

Fair enough.

O.city
04-01-2012, 12:42 PM
If we draft this guy and decide he's our day one starter, how would the board feel?

whoman69
04-01-2012, 12:44 PM
If we draft this guy and decide he's our day one starter, how would the board feel?

Amazed. Is this an April Fools thing?

O.city
04-01-2012, 12:46 PM
Nope not at all.



We pick him at 11, after training camp he beats out Cassel. We decide he's the guy.

BossChief
04-01-2012, 12:59 PM
If he is our pick, there is a core group of us that will have to try and keep the board in check because massive amounts of patience will likely be needed.

I don't think he should start day one, but if he does that core group will be working overtime.

He would probably throw 20 picks and more than half of them would be really ugly.

That would be expected IMO.

"Fuck Pioli for drafting this piece of trash"

"Cam Newton never made mistakes like these"

"no franchise quarterback makes that throw"

"I can't believe we traded up for this guy"

"can we have Cassel back?"

Comments like those would be commonplace around here if he is the opening day starter year 1.

O.city
04-01-2012, 01:02 PM
Only reason I would think about starting him day 1 is that he can basically do what Cassel already does. Lean on the run, make a throw here and there.


I would rather him do that and learn from his mistakes, allowing us to put more on him as the year goes by than to sit him behind Cassel.

chiefzilla1501
04-01-2012, 01:06 PM
I would take Tannehill at 11 if he's there, though IMO he's a 17th-20th pick value. That said, I'd still wanna see Stanzi given a fair chance. Nothing wrong with finding two good young QBs on our roster if we are lucky enough. One could stay and the other traded for a higher pick than we spent of him.

That's Tannehill's value in this draft. In any other draft, he's a borderline first round pick.

I'm not a big fan at all of Tannehill. As I've said before, a QB that raw had better have elite... something. Elite mobility. Elite arm strength. Elite mental processing of the game. Tannehill is very good on 1 and 2, but he is MILES away from elite. He's not a big hulking guy like Big Ben that can carry 10 guys on his back and he's not a 4.4 guy like RGIII. His arm strength is better than Cassel's, but he doesn't have a Cutler arm. This is not the type of QB you take with a #11 pick. So right now, you have to hope that he not just becomes good at mentally reading defenses and thinking through the game, you have to hope he becomes elite. Brady-like. Keep in mind that if you commit to Tannehill, you throw away any chance to draft a QB in the next 3 years.

Me? I'd rather make an aggressive move in 2013 for the right QB than bank our entire future on the wrong one just because he's convenient.

O.city
04-01-2012, 01:16 PM
zilla, I had the same thoughts about the guy a few weeks ago.


But the more I really watch the guy and read about him, I'm swaying a little.


I don't think he's a cant miss prospect by any means, but there is alot of potential there.

Coogs
04-01-2012, 01:23 PM
If we draft this guy and decide he's our day one starter, how would the board feel?

LT - Albert
LG - Lilja
C - Hudson
RG - Asamoah
RT - Winston
RB - Charles/Hillis
TE - Moeaki/Boss
WR - Bowe
WR - Breaston
WR - Baldwin
Jack of all trades, master of none - McCluster

I think a lot of pieces are in place that would allow for a rookie QB to come in and have success. Not sure if I would start him in his first year, but I could see it happening too.

Plus, we probably are not going to the Super Bowl next year anyway, and he would have a year o experience under his belt.

Chiefnj2
04-01-2012, 01:44 PM
Tannehill is the anti-Stanzi.

Does anyone have that article, or link, where Stanzi graded out the highest among prospects last year? The authors had been putting together a schedule of variables like starts, compl %, performance in big games, etc., and Stanzi's grade came in incredibly high - IIRC in tough games he was Mr. Clutch according to the article.

rico
04-01-2012, 02:21 PM
Tannehill is the anti-Stanzi.

Does anyone have that article, or link, where Stanzi graded out the highest among prospects last year? The authors had been putting together a schedule of variables like starts, compl %, performance in big games, etc., and Stanzi's grade came in incredibly high - IIRC in tough games he was Mr. Clutch according to the article.

Wasn't it on a fantastyfootballmetrics.com site or something?

Bewbies
04-01-2012, 02:29 PM
I would love Stanzi and Tannehill competing. Both should become way better for it.