PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Ryan Tannehill


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

lcarus
04-04-2012, 06:59 PM
I am more convinced he is not that franchise QB. If this organization whiffs again on a QB, who is to say they aren't scared for another three decades? I would rather wait a little longer for the right one. I don't think Tannehill is even a first round talent, only put in the position because he's a QB and several teams are in need.

He might be a whiff, but if they whiff once and then are in position the next year or two to take someone better, and they dont, then we're fucking idiots and screwed anyway.

Red Beans
04-04-2012, 07:05 PM
He might be a whiff, but if they whiff once and then are in position the next year or two to take someone better, and they dont, then we're ****ing idiots and screwed anyway.


Plus, it's not like we're going to be contending with the cap issues a first round QB would have caused in previous years...

BossChief
04-04-2012, 07:06 PM
If I'm Romeo, I'd expect a similar courtesy that most head coaches get.

A quarterback of his choosing.

That's pretty much the way of the business.

milkman
04-04-2012, 07:42 PM
But I don't think anyone would claim he ascended. He regressed / stayed the same. I say this just to consider that Zorn may not be the QB whisperer for every QB.

You can take a dog to a horse whisperer, saddle him up and try to ride him.
But at the end of the day, no amount of whispering is going to turn that dog into a horse.

Personally I'd rather roll with Stanzi who I think is a better prospect than Tannehill than take Tanehill unless he drops to 11.

I can get behind that idea, cause I saw a QB who showed some things in his limited preseason opportunity.

And note, I did not say "opportunities" since he only had one real opportunity.

But, at the same time, I don't really care to put all my eggs into one basket.

Frankie
04-05-2012, 12:05 AM
Lindley isn't accurate, is a slug in the pocket, and doesn't make reads worth a shit.True, based on reviews that I have read so far.
His deep ball is not great, his arm strength is questionable, his footwork in the pocket is questionable.Untrue, based on reviews that I have read so far.

And based on (only) the two games I watched him in.

...., he fell apart in big games, and otherwise failed to put up elite numbers in a pass-friendly conference. I have not seen him fall apart in the two games of him that I have watched. I saw him as poised and cool and making fairly good decisions. But I have only seen him in two games so I'll defer this point to you for now.

Keep dreaming.

And prepare yourself for Brady Quinn.:eek: You know I'm a Brady basher. Why do you do this to me man?

We are desperate. If Tannehill is the wrong QB, so be it. We gotta take a chance on someone at some point, because chances of getting a #1 overall pick at the same time a "sure thing" is sitting there in the draft is low. We can't get scared of drafting a first round QB because we whiffed on Blackledge three decades ago. This is a year where we don't really need have a lot of needs, and are in a pretty good spot in the draft to move up a few spots without giving up too much. Otherwise we're gonna continue to trot out the Matt Cassels and Kyle Ortons of the NFL forever.Pretty much my stance at this point. :thumb:

Personally I'd rather roll with Stanzi who I think is a better prospect than Tannehill than take Tanehill unless he drops to 11.Pretty much my stance at this point. :thumb: (And no it does not clash with my post above.)

Also, Pioli has flat out said he would be ok with trading up for a quarterback, but that he wouldn't ever trade multiple first rounders to do so.I think he meant 1st rounders of multiple years of drafting.

You can take a dog to a horse whisperer, saddle him up and try to ride him.
But at the end of the day, no amount of whispering is going to turn that dog into a horse.That's actually pretty good. I'm sure I'll use it sometime is a discussion.

King_Chief_Fan
04-05-2012, 06:20 AM
Personally I'd rather roll with Stanzi who I think is a better prospect than Tannehill than take Tanehill unless he drops to 11.

Not sure that makes sense, you would rather roll with Stanzi because you think he is a better prospect....but you would take Tannehill with the #11 overall pick in the draft:spock: . I think I am missing something in the translation.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 07:07 AM
It seems to me that Manning considered Denver a better fit than us in the AFCW and I would be willing to bet It was because Denver was willing to ship Tebow out so there would be no controversy if he had a rocky start while we were unwilling to do so. That's just a guess on my part though.

So in the end, Manning didn't eliminate us because he wanted to avoid competition between two division rivals. He eliminated us because he didn't want to have to COMPETE WITH MATT CASSEL.

You have to remember that Peyton didn't want everyone to know his whole medical history and letting two division teams both see it would be counterproductive in that respect. He obvious had something to hide there and didn't want a division rival to know those secrets.

Now that I can agree with. The Chiefs and Broncos competing for his services would have certainly driven up the price but had the potential to get VERY ugly too.

Now, as far as the Bowe info goes...we are on the outside looking in and aren't privy to the pertinent information that is behind closed doors. The difference between the exclusive and non exclusive tag is 20% or in this case about 2million.

It seems to me that the ability to negotiate with other teams is worth considerably more than $2M. Just ask Carr. Maybe Bowe isn't all that bright?

Bowe knows that Pioli is playing hardball with him and that with the new rules we can force Bowe to either retire or play this year on the tag and then tag him again next year for a 20% increase. That means we could own him the next two years for a little under 21 million and besides retiring, there isn't a damn thing Dwayne can do about it that would make him more valuable around the league.

Currently tagged the way he is, he can at least talk to other teams. The ERF tag dosn't allow that, which makes him even more "stuck".

The wife corroborated Carrs interview that he wanted to be a Cowboy since he was a kid and that her daughter was broken hearted about him leaving and that after our last homegame, he basically made it a point to say goodbye to her. It was set in stone that he was leaving after the year...signing Routt as early as we did makes a lot more sense knowing that.

You and I have always agreed on this. I don't think Carr ever wanted to re-sign here. It sucks, but it is what it is.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 07:09 AM
I really want to believe Cassel will be on an extremely short leash if/when he returns as the starter...but it's hard to actually trust that belief as anything more than hope.

And therein is the ONLY difference between you and I - I've lost my hope. I had it for a long, long time, even when it wasn't warranted. I spent the better part of a decade on this board being called a homer - at one point I was President of the Carl Peterson Apologist's Club according to some.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 07:11 AM
:spock:

I think you're confusing Tannehill with someone else. He's not remotely similar to Tebow. At all. Nowhere close.

Erp...

I'm not suggesting Tannehill is anything like Tebow.

Tannehill has specific strengths (lateral movement after the snap, short passing game, etc.) that we could build an offense around.

It wouldn't be as extreme as what they needed to do with Tebow, for sure. The Panthers did something similar with Newton and again, Tannehill isn't much like Cam Newton either. But he has specific strengths that you could tailor an offense around.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 07:21 AM
I don't get it, man.

You say that Stanzi is a legit franchise quarterback prospect in the same breath calling me a Iowa homer...but claim you aren't one. Puzzling, to say the least.

I've tried to be nice about it but I don't know how else to say it - when I left, I was an Iowa FAN. When I came back, I'm suddenly an Iowa HOMER. And everybody that says it has a finger firmly pointed at YOU.

I do believe Stanzi has the POTENTIAL to be a starter in the NFL. I'm absolutely CERTAIN he's the best option currently on the roster. There's nothing about those two statements that make me (or you) an Iowa homer but that seems to be the general consensus around here.

Then, you vehimitently argue that Trent Richardson would be a terrible pick.

You forgot the qualifying statement: "for the Chiefs". I think Trent Richardson gives the Chiefs a safety blanket they'd never give up. Instead of 1, 2, or God forbid 3, more years of Cassel it would be TEN more years of Cassel or somebody like him. I want these guys to do the right thing and get a REAL QB or I want them to FAIL, utterly, and get fired.

You don't want any part of drafting Tanehill (considered a top ten pick quality quarterback prospect by Mayock and McShay) even though he has fantastic athleticism, a plus arm, uncoachable instincts for the position to go with tremendous poise.

Again, you forgot the qualifying statement. I don't believe the Chiefs have anybody capable of developing a guy like Tannehill. I just don't.

As for Tannehill himself, he wasn't considered a Top 10 pick by either of those guys the day the season ended. I don't believe in combine numbers and private workouts. History has shown, over and over again, that guys that get it done consistently in college get it done in the NFL.

Furthermore, Tannehill does NOT have fantastic athleticism. He has above average athleticism, probably well above average, but "fantastic" is reserved for guys like Newton and RG3. I won't even address "uncoachable instincts" and "tremendous poise". Watch his game tape - more often than not, he wilts like a 10-cent flower...

I may be wrong, but I think I remember you not wanting Decastro or Kuechly, either.

I'd take DeCastro - I think him and Kuechly would be great, solid picks. Not gonna get excited about them though.

Is there any pick you would actually be excited about?

I like the thought of pairing Barron with Berry. I also like the thought of picking up another pass rusher. Overall, the #11 pick this year is just a bad spot. Very blah.

Not trying to bust your balls, just genuinely want to know... because one of the few posters on here that I fully respect is Milkman and he respects you.

I guess I'm somewhat curious as to what your realistic expectations for the pick are if we can't move down.

Trust me, I'm not trying to bust yours either. Just saying it the way I see it.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 07:22 AM
We are desperate. If Tannehill is the wrong QB, so be it. We gotta take a chance on someone at some point, because chances of getting a #1 overall pick at the same time a "sure thing" is sitting there in the draft is low. We can't get scared of drafting a first round QB because we whiffed on Blackledge three decades ago. This is a year where we don't really need have a lot of needs, and are in a pretty good spot in the draft to move up a few spots without giving up too much. Otherwise we're gonna continue to trot out the Matt Cassels and Kyle Ortons of the NFL forever.

Fine, take him at #11.

Just don't TRADE FOR HIM.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 07:22 AM
Here's an interesting tidbit.

My first year of the cp mock, Mecca sent me 10 or so PMs asking me who I would take at his picks and we had some good conversations about them. He was a lot smarter than most give him credit for, but me and him butted heads quite often.

That dude was bright and knows a lot about the game and more so the college game...but the way he acted like he was never wrong rubbed lots of people the wrong way and then he would never admit to being wrong.

All that aside, the board was better when he posted here, no matter what the butthurt masses say about him.

This, this, and more this.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 07:23 AM
22ish

1.17

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 07:24 AM
I think the plan was not to play him, but Palko's play forced their hand. We would have had a limited playbook that week.

Just limited enough to pull out the fucking FLEA FLICKER.

They're morons.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 07:25 AM
He might be a whiff, but if they whiff once and then are in position the next year or two to take someone better, and they dont, then we're ****ing idiots and screwed anyway.

You could probably just extract the part in bold and it would still be true...

Chiefnj2
04-05-2012, 07:26 AM
People keep saying outside of QB KC is basically drafting for depth in the 1st round and on. Is that true? Does this team, who came in last place last year and hasn't won a playoff game since 93', really have quality starters across the board at every position (other than QB, ILB and NT)? The other positions can't be improved upon with the #11 or 45th pick in the draft?

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 07:27 AM
If I'm Romeo, I'd expect a similar courtesy that most head coaches get.

A quarterback of his choosing.

That's pretty much the way of the business.

Romeo already got all of the courtesy he is going to get when he got handed the HC job.

This isn't really any different than when Carl hired Gunther "I don't deserve this job but nobody else wants it because they won't be a foot-shuffling porter like me" Cunningham.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 07:28 AM
People keep saying outside of QB KC is basically drafting for depth in the 1st round and on. Is that true? Does this team, who came in last place last year and hasn't won a playoff game since 93', really have quality starters across the board at every position (other than QB, ILB and NT)? The other positions can't be improved upon with the #11 or 45th pick in the draft?

With the #11 pick, we could improve at nearly every position on the field. You're absolutely right.

Frankie
04-05-2012, 01:21 PM
I do believe Stanzi has the POTENTIAL to be a starter in the NFL. I'm absolutely CERTAIN he's the best option currently on the roster.You're far from alone on that wagon, my friend.

Fine, take him at #11.

Just don't TRADE FOR HIM.I can get excited about that. BTW, I really don't think Cleveland is stupid enough to take him at 4. Also Miami is not a guaranteed Tannehill picker. They need WRs, pass russers, and have a couple of other big position needs. They are about as set at QB as we are. They might, IMO, go for an elite player for one of those positions and try for a 2nd rd QB. A lot of smoke screening is going on right now and Miami might even want to trade down. If I'm Pioli, I'm waiting for my pick at 11 with my fingers crossed. But there, given our circumstances, I would definitely pick Tanny. If he's not there, I'd DEFINITELY try to trade down for more picks.

People keep saying outside of QB KC is basically drafting for depth in the 1st round and on. Is that true? I think we are saying that we are close enough to "set" with our roster that now we can afford risking the 1st for long term QBOTF.

We can then use the rest of our draft (and free agency) to bring in competition for the more improvable positions.

philfree
04-05-2012, 02:51 PM
With the #11 pick, we could improve at nearly every position on the field. You're absolutely right.

Who are the players worth the #11 pick that will be a for sure improvement over any of our starters? I'll spot you DeCastro over Lilja.

I'm not really trying to bust your balls but that's a pretty big statement.

BossChief
04-05-2012, 03:04 PM
Evidently, some here would still rather draft Derrick Johnson over Aaron Rodgers.

Hell, Kuechly isn't even that good.

rico
04-05-2012, 03:08 PM
You're far from alone on that wagon, my friend.

I can get excited about that. BTW, I really don't think Cleveland is stupid enough to take him at 4. Also Miami is not a guaranteed Tannehill picker. They need WRs, pass russers, and have a couple of other big position needs. They are about as set at QB as we are. They might, IMO, go for an elite player for one of those positions and try for a 2nd rd QB. A lot of smoke screening is going on right now and Miami might even want to trade down. If I'm Pioli, I'm waiting for my pick at 11 with my fingers crossed. But there, given our circumstances, I would definitely pick Tanny. If he's not there, I'd DEFINITELY try to trade down for more picks.

I think we are saying that we are close enough to "set" with our roster that now we can afford risking the 1st for long term QBOTF.

We can then use the rest of our draft (and free agency) to bring in competition for the more improvable positions.

And if they don't pick Tannehill, hopefully a red flag is raised given the Sherman connection.

evolve27
04-05-2012, 03:16 PM
It sucks that Pioli has a little penis inside of him and won't draft a QB in the first. I guarantee it.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 03:31 PM
Who are the players worth the #11 pick that will be a for sure improvement over any of our starters? I'll spot you DeCastro over Lilja.

I'm not really trying to bust your balls but that's a pretty big statement.

Is Tannehill a SURE improvement over our starter?

Your criteria aren't being fairly applied.

philfree
04-05-2012, 03:44 PM
Is Tannehill a SURE improvement over our starter?

Your criteria aren't being fairly applied.

I'm not the one who made the statement so it's not really my criteria.

IMO Tannehill needs to be brought along slowly at first and kept out of the regular season games in 2012. I didn't say sit a year because he better be working his tail off.

So who are these immediate upgrades we can draft and would draft at #11?

If you don't want Tannehill that's fine but there's probably better arguments then the one you used.

whoman69
04-05-2012, 03:54 PM
He might be a whiff, but if they whiff once and then are in position the next year or two to take someone better, and they dont, then we're ****ing idiots and screwed anyway.

You can't just act like its ok to toss away picks. Every first rounder is a potential starter. Miss on too many and you start having to replace the players with more expensive FAs that hurt your cap space. Just ask Carl Pederson about missing on draft picks. He's an expert.

whoman69
04-05-2012, 04:12 PM
I'm not the one who made the statement so it's not really my criteria.

IMO Tannehill needs to be brought along slowly at first and kept out of the regular season games in 2012. I didn't say sit a year because he better be working his tail off.

So who are these immediate upgrades we can draft and would draft at #11?

If you don't want Tannehill that's fine but there's probably better arguments then the one you used.

Kuechly over Belcher
Barron could move Berry to FS
Konz could move Hudson to G

There are any number of players that could come in and start and be better than what we have. His argument isn't just based on that though. He doesn't believe that Tannehill can ever be a franchise QB. He's not alone in that assessment.

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-05-2012, 04:46 PM
It makes absolutely no sense to take an ILB at 11. None at all.

Frankie
04-05-2012, 05:50 PM
And if they don't pick Tannehill, hopefully a red flag is raised given the Sherman connection.

NO!

Sherman is only a vote in the draft war room. The final say is with the HC and the GM. Sherman might jump up and down and scream like a $2 whore or stand on his head to get them to draft Tannehill. But if there's an elite player there at 8 that fits a more immediate need his bosses may very well take him over Tanny. Miami not taking Tannehill is in no way a reflection on him.

Is Tannehill a SURE improvement over our starter?


I believe, long term, yes.


Kuechly over Belcher
Barron could move Berry to FS
Konz could move Hudson to G

There are any number of players that could come in and start and be better than what we have. His argument isn't just based on that though. He doesn't believe that Tannehill can ever be a franchise QB. He's not alone in that assessment.Is konz, a center, worth the 11th position?

It makes absolutely no sense to take an ILB at 11. None at all.

Or a C.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 05:54 PM
I'm not the one who made the statement so it's not really my criteria.

IMO Tannehill needs to be brought along slowly at first and kept out of the regular season games in 2012. I didn't say sit a year because he better be working his tail off.

So who are these immediate upgrades we can draft and would draft at #11?

If you don't want Tannehill that's fine but there's probably better arguments then the one you used.

It wasn't my argument. Chiefnj was the one that mentioned that everybody that WANTS Tannehill assumes the rest of the roster is set when in fact we could upgrade nearly every position on the field.

DeCastro, Kuechly, Barron, Richardson, Wright, Ingram, Cox, Glenn, Brockers, and Kirkpatrick would all be upgrades instantaneously and that's off the top of my head.

htismaqe
04-05-2012, 05:55 PM
It makes absolutely no sense to take an ILB at 11. None at all.

No, it doesn't.

But Kuechly is still an instant upgrade over Belcher. That was the question that was asked.

Tuckdaddy
04-05-2012, 05:56 PM
He will never get past Miami.

ILChief
04-05-2012, 05:57 PM
It makes absolutely no sense to take an ILB at 11. None at all.

Ray Lewis and Brian Urlacher disagree

rico
04-05-2012, 06:00 PM
NO!

Sherman is only a vote in the draft war room. The final say is with the HC and the GM. Sherman might jump up and down and scream like a $2 whore or stand on his head to get them to draft Tannehill. But if there's an elite player there at 8 that fits a more immediate need his bosses may very well take him over Tanny. Miami not taking Tannehill is in no way a reflection on him.



I believe, long term, yes.


Is konz, a center, worth the 11th position?



Or a C.

I realize that he is not the GM or HC and ultimately does not get to choose who to draft, but considering that he is an integral part of their coaching staff, I am sure he has some insight regarding Tannehill and I am sure that the HC/GM have probably already inquired about what his potential insight may be. If they haven't inquired yet or fail to do so, they have some glaring trust/respect issues going on with their coaching staff/front office.

BossChief
04-05-2012, 06:01 PM
Some of you guys absolutely DESERVE to be stuck with Cassel.

Shit, you're basically asking for exactly that.

With no risk, there is no reward and Tannehills ceiling is Aaron Rodgers and the similarities between the scenario this year and 2005 is strikingly similar.

Chocolate Hog
04-05-2012, 06:06 PM
Some of you guys absolutely DESERVE to be stuck with Cassel.

Shit, you're basically asking for exactly that.

With no risk, there is no reward and Tannehills ceiling is Aaron Rodgers and the similarities between the scenario this year and 2005 is strikingly similar.

Whoa you think Tannehills ceilings is Rodgers? I'd be happy if it was Rivers but I don't think it's even that high.

Frankie
04-05-2012, 06:12 PM
I realize that he is not the GM or HC and ultimately does not get to choose who to draft, but considering that he is an integral part of their coaching staff, I am sure he has some insight regarding Tannehill and I am sure that the HC/GM have probably already inquired about what his potential insight may be. If they haven't inquired yet or fail to do so, they have some glaring trust/respect issues going on with their coaching staff/front office.

You are underestimating the idiocy of the Miami GM.

Whoa you think Tannehills ceilings is Rodgers? I'd be happy if it was Rivers but I don't think it's even that high.

Rivers is a cool head away from being elite. I think Tannehill is much more poised than him.

rico
04-05-2012, 06:16 PM
You are underestimating the idiocy of the Miami GM.



Yeah, maybe so...

SNR
04-05-2012, 06:18 PM
Is Tannehill a SURE improvement over our starter?

Your criteria aren't being fairly applied.You do realize it's statement like these that get some people to call you a homer even though you've turned into one of the more pessimistic posters on the entire forum? :D

BossChief
04-05-2012, 06:19 PM
Prior to the draft in 05, the knocks on Rodgers were very similar to those of Tannehills.

Lack of experience
System player

So were his strengths.

Mobile
Strong arm
Elusive
Poised
Accurate
Smart

I am talking from a skill standpoint because I can comment on his ability to overcome game situations because as I've said all along, I didn't watch any full games of his...only pieces.

I think their ceilings are very similar.

SNR
04-05-2012, 06:21 PM
Whoa you think Tannehills ceilings is Rodgers? I'd be happy if it was Rivers but I don't think it's even that high.Nobody knows what Tannehill's ceiling is. Nobody knows which Pro QB to compare him to. He's almost 100% a "Would you like what's in the box or would you like what's behind curtain #1" pick. He could be a new TV set. He could be a car. He could be a zonk. He could even just be an underwhelming toaster. Nobody can even make a guess what his ceiling is.

That's what scares teams off, but it's also what lures them into drafting Tannehill.

BossChief
04-05-2012, 06:24 PM
You do realize it's statement like these that get some people to call you a homer even though you've turned into one of the more pessimistic posters on the entire forum? :D

No, no, no...it's my fault he gets called a homer.

Haven't you heard?

milkman
04-05-2012, 10:16 PM
No, it doesn't.

But Kuechly is still an instant upgrade over Belcher. That was the question that was asked.

Kuechly is a near carbon copy of DJ.

It took DJ 5 years to begin to play a more physical brand of football.

Shedding blocks is not thumping.

Belcher is a thumper, and as important as the pass coverage is, you still need that thumper in the middle against the run.

Kuechly has done nothing to show that he can be that thumper.

People are simply making that leap because of his size.

And the fact is, TEs did not rape us last season, as so many claim.

In short, I disagree wholeheartedly with the statement above.

BossChief
04-05-2012, 10:49 PM
Kuechly is DJ without the playmaking ability.

DJ forced 7 or 8 fumbles his last year at Texas and had a couple picks and hits like a mack truck.

Kuechly not forcing a single fumble to go with almost 200 tackles is a huge red flag for a guy being talked about as high as 11th overall.

Honestly, I think Kuechly would be a really bad pick for us at 11.

If we move down to 17-22...I dont really care who we take as long as we get good value for the trade down.

Frankie
04-05-2012, 10:54 PM
If we move down to 17-22...I dont really care who we take as long as we get good value for the trade down.

Short of taking Tannehill at 11, a trade down is my favorite scenario too. But I'm afraid we may not find a trade partner. :(

BossChief
04-05-2012, 11:02 PM
The only way we are gonna have any shot at a superbowl with Cassel is if we go the Ravens/TampaBay mold of a historic team around him.

Moving down and getting two more good players is way better than taking a guy like Kuechly or Decastro at 11.

We could slide back and still get a guy like Barron and with the profit take a guy like Chapman.

If we arent getting a quarterback thats the next best thing.

philfree
04-05-2012, 11:15 PM
It wasn't my argument. Chiefnj was the one that mentioned that everybody that WANTS Tannehill assumes the rest of the roster is set when in fact we could upgrade nearly every position on the field.

DeCastro, Kuechly, Barron, Richardson, Wright, Ingram, Cox, Glenn, Brockers, and Kirkpatrick would all be upgrades instantaneously and that's off the top of my head.

Yeah you can always upgrade your talent at any given position. The question is will that really be possible when we pick. I believe DeCastro would be an instantaneous upgrade and Cordy Glenn would too but would you draft him at #11? Richardson would upgrade our running game but I'm not sure you'd say he's an upgrade to JC. That would be stretch but I'd be good with drafting Richardson but he'll probably be off the board. And besides that you don't want him because he'll cause us to win games with Cassel.

Do you really think a rookie 5-tech is going to be an immediate improvement over the vets we've developed the last three years. Have we learned nothing about how long it takes to develope D linmen over the years?

Wright or Kirkpatrick would be hard pressed to beat out the starters.

Edit: Milkman addressed Keuchly

Tribal Warfare
04-06-2012, 01:19 AM
Before his foot injury I was alright with him as a possible selection, but due to that injury that kept him from participating in offseason workouts and activities specifically the Senior Bowl made me wary of the guy as a pick.

Chiefnj2
04-06-2012, 06:31 AM
Tannehill has gone from being a 3rd round pick when college football ended to having a ceiling of the best QB in the NFL right now. Wow. Canton should be getting their smelting pots heated up.

Bewbies
04-06-2012, 06:39 AM
Tannehill has gone from being a 3rd round pick when college football ended to having a ceiling of the best QB in the NFL right now. Wow. Canton should be getting their smelting pots heated up.

No, it's DeCastro they are preparing a bust for. He's going to carry it out on stage when Hurricane Goodell calls his name.

Bewbies
04-06-2012, 06:39 AM
Before his foot injury I was alright with him as a possible selection, but due to that injury that kept him from participating in offseason workouts and activities specifically the Senior Bowl made me wary of the guy as a pick.

ROFL

Me too, if I'm drafting a QB his offseason workouts before the draft are of uber importance for his next 10-15 years.

htismaqe
04-06-2012, 07:06 AM
Some of you guys absolutely DESERVE to be stuck with Cassel.

Shit, you're basically asking for exactly that.

With no risk, there is no reward and Tannehills ceiling is Aaron Rodgers and the similarities between the scenario this year and 2005 is strikingly similar.

OMG, you've lost your fucking mind.

htismaqe
04-06-2012, 07:07 AM
You do realize it's statement like these that get some people to call you a homer even though you've turned into one of the more pessimistic posters on the entire forum? :D

I've always tried to be balanced and objective, considering all sides of an argument. That usually means a fight and being accused of being a homer. :)

htismaqe
04-06-2012, 07:11 AM
Aaron Rodgers was the 23rd or 24th pick overall.

htismaqe
04-06-2012, 07:27 AM
No, no, no...it's my fault he gets called a homer.

Haven't you heard?

It's your fault I get called a HAWKEYE homer.

It's my fault I get called a Chiefs homer. I'm still getting bi-weekly checks from Carl Peterson. He's paying me to talk bad about Pioli...

BossChief
04-06-2012, 08:10 AM
It's your fault I get called a HAWKEYE homer.

It's my fault I get called a Chiefs homer. I'm still getting bi-weekly checks from Carl Peterson. He's paying me to talk bad about Pioli...

Heres a clue, bud.

You get called a hawkeye homer because you call a 5th round pick a legit franchise quarterback prospect.

You want to blame that on me? Fine

htismaqe
04-06-2012, 09:22 AM
Heres a clue, bud.

You get called a hawkeye homer because you call a 5th round pick a legit franchise quarterback prospect.

You want to blame that on me? Fine

ROFL

I've talked about other Iowa players before you ever got here and never had an issue.

In fact, for a while after I returned there was flat-out HATRED for Hawkeye fans here, mostly from Nebraska people.

And guess what, most of them pointed right at you. *I* am not blaming you for anything. Just acknowledging the "lay of the land".

Chiefnj2
04-06-2012, 09:24 AM
All I know is that in preseason games last year Stanzi showed as much, if not slightly more, than Palko and Cassel.

jspchief
04-06-2012, 09:27 AM
Tannehill has gone from being a 3rd round pick when college football ended...
Not true. I started the Tannehill thread in Oct, saying he could move into rnd 1. And I wasn't the only one saying it.

Coogs
04-06-2012, 09:29 AM
All I know is that in preseason games last year Stanzi showed as much, if not slightly more, than Palko and Cassel.

All of that with pretty much the camp fodder on the field with him too!

jspchief
04-06-2012, 09:34 AM
All I know is that in preseason games last year Stanzi showed as much, if not slightly more, than Palko and Cassel.

He showed an ability to create plays. Something Castle can't do.

Chocolate Hog
04-06-2012, 10:43 AM
ROFL

I've talked about other Iowa players before you ever got here and never had an issue.

In fact, for a while after I returned there was flat-out HATRED for Hawkeye fans here, mostly from Nebraska people.

And guess what, most of them pointed right at you. *I* am not blaming you for anything. Just acknowledging the "lay of the land".

It has NOTHING to do with being a fan of Nebraska and EVERYTHING to do with calling a 5th round pick a legit franchise QB. Infact it's not only Nebraska people you can go back and read Hamas's comments when we drafted Stanzi or OTW's thoughts on Stanzi. Those aren't Nebraska people.

Tribal Warfare
04-06-2012, 10:49 AM
ROFL

Me too, if I'm drafting a QB his offseason workouts before the draft are of uber importance for his next 10-15 years.

The reason why I say this is the severity of his injury will effect him in gameplay is unknown, and the Senior Bowl could of been a great test to see where he stands against other possible 1st round talent.

Bowser
04-06-2012, 11:02 AM
We as Chiefs fans are so absolutely starved for a franchise quarterback to call our own, that we will annoint a QB in a thin QB draft class that played more snaps at receiver than quarterback the next Aaron Rodgers. Let that sink in.

BossChief
04-06-2012, 12:05 PM
ROFL

I've talked about other Iowa players before you ever got here and never had an issue.

In fact, for a while after I returned there was flat-out HATRED for Hawkeye fans here, mostly from Nebraska people.

And guess what, most of them pointed right at you. *I* am not blaming you for anything. Just acknowledging the "lay of the land".

Haha

I think it's fucking hilarious that you think it's my fault people call you a homer.

Mr_Tomahawk
04-06-2012, 12:18 PM
ROFL

I've talked about other Iowa players before you ever got here and never had an issue.

In fact, for a while after I returned there was flat-out HATRED for Hawkeye fans here, mostly from Nebraska people.

And guess what, most of them pointed right at you. *I* am not blaming you for anything. Just acknowledging the "lay of the land".

Homer

Frankie
04-06-2012, 12:46 PM
All I know is that in preseason games last year Stanzi showed WAY more, than Palko and Cassel.

FYP

keg in kc
04-06-2012, 12:54 PM
I've talked about other Iowa players before you ever got here and never had an issue.

In fact, for a while after I returned there was flat-out HATRED for Hawkeye fans here, mostly from Nebraska people.

And guess what, most of them pointed right at you. *I* am not blaming you for anything. Just acknowledging the "lay of the land".Who gives a shit about nebraska.

Bowser
04-06-2012, 01:00 PM
Tannehill reminds me of Blaine Gabbert. Gabbert may well end up being a superstar, but he was nowhere ready to play against NFL competition last year. Tannehill would likely have a worse rookie season, if pressed to play, and would take longer to develop than Gabbert will, as Tannehill is still learning the position.

Is that a player worth trading up and losing draft picks for?

SNR
04-06-2012, 01:15 PM
Who gives a shit about nebraska.I like Nebraska Furniture Mart. Does that count?

Bowser
04-06-2012, 01:19 PM
I like Nebraska Furniture Mart. Does that count?

No, but yes. Maybe, but not likely.

whoman69
04-06-2012, 01:21 PM
I think we should have a new term. Tannehill homer, the guys who believe a QB that spent half his college career as a receiver, went to all the QB drills and meetings while starting as a WR (doubtful), locked onto his receivers, and wilted against the best competition is a future franchise QB. These homers want us to believe that not only should we take this 3rd round talent with the 11th pick, but if we need to give up some extra picks, we should.

SNR
04-06-2012, 01:24 PM
I think we should have a new term. Tannehill homer, the guys who believe a QB that spent half his college career as a receiver, went to all the QB drills and meetings while starting as a WR (doubtful), locked onto his receivers, and wilted against the best competition is a future franchise QB. These homers want us to believe that not only should we take this 3rd round talent with the 11th pick, but if we need to give up some extra picks, we should
I already created "draftmosphere" earlier today. The Planet can't create this many new words in a day. You'll have to wait a few days, I'm afraid.

Von Dumbass
04-06-2012, 01:38 PM
I don't think the Chiefs are setup to develop a guy like Tannehill. Our culture just isn't right for a project. The GM might not be here much longer, the HC might only last one season, and we have a new OC. I think a guy like Luck could step into this situation no problem but not a guy like Tannehill. If we draft Tannehill I could see his career turning out a lot like Alex Smith's.

Look, I want a QBOTF as bad as anyone but taking one because you are desperate is the wrong move. Crennel already failed with Brady Quinn and Daboll failed with Colt McCoy. I think we should wait until we hire an offensive minded HC who can develop a QB before we take one.

SNR
04-06-2012, 01:39 PM
I don't think the Chiefs are setup to develop a guy like Tannehill. Our culture just isn't right for a project. The GM might not be here much longer, the HC might only last one season, and we have a new OC. I think a guy like Luck could step into this situation no problem but not a guy like Tannehill. If we draft Tannehill I could see his career turning out a lot like Alex Smith's.

Look, I want a QBOTF as bad as anyone but taking one because you are desperate is the wrong move. Crennel already failed with Brady Quinn and Daboll failed with Colt McCoy. I think we should wait until we hire an offensive minded HC who can develop a QB before we take one.Do you think we should have traded for Tim Tebow, fellow Chiefs fan?

Von Dumbass
04-06-2012, 01:45 PM
Do you think we should have traded for Tim Tebow, fellow Chiefs fan?

For a 4th and a 6th? Absolutely. His ceiling is incredibly high, and if he doesn't reach his ceiling at least he would have given the Chiefs some much needed pub.

BossChief
04-06-2012, 01:50 PM
McCoy regressed after Daboll left and Matt Moore looked good under his coaching as well.

Zorn was a west coast player and coach and could probably pick up where Sherman left off.

We also have an extreme amount of talent on offense to work with and a top ten defense to keep him from having to force things.

I wouldn't start him as a rook, but I would hand him the keys to the "lambo" going into year 2.

No problem.

Frankie
04-06-2012, 04:21 PM
Tannehill reminds me of Blaine Gabbert. Gabbert may well end up being a superstar, but he was nowhere ready to play against NFL competition last year. Tannehill would likely have a worse rookie season, if pressed to play, and would take longer to develop than Gabbert will, as Tannehill is still learning the position

I don't know what you are basing this argument on. Gabbert was strictly a spread QB, was he not? Tannehill has taken snaps directly from the center something like half of the time. Plus what's intriguing about Tannehill is how he has improved in a short amount of time, as much, if not more than Gabbert for his game experience. To me it speaks to his coachability and and makes him a great candidate for a fast and successful development.

Bowser
04-06-2012, 04:44 PM
I don't know what you are basing this argument on. Gabbert was strictly a spread QB, was he not? Tannehill has taken snaps directly from the center something like half of the time. Plus what's intriguing about Tannehill is how he has improved in a short amount of time, as much, if not more than Gabbert for his game experience. To me it speaks to his coachability and and makes him a great candidate for a fast and successful development.

aTm ran a pread attack primarily. He may have gone under center more than Mizzou QB's did, but that doesn't make him any more NFL readythan Gabbert was.

And when you talk about potential development in a player, much less a QB, it makes me really, really not want to trade up to take him. If there were just a couple more legit QB prospects this year, we'd be talking about Tannehill being a second or third round pick.

I don't want him, but I'd pull for him if we took him at 11. If we move up, I'll be pissed.

Dave Lane
04-06-2012, 04:51 PM
For a 4th and a 6th? Absolutely. His ceiling is incredibly high, and if he doesn't reach his ceiling at least he would have given the Chiefs some much needed pub.

I wouldn't have given a ham sandwich and a six pack of beer to be named later for Turdbow.

whoman69
04-06-2012, 05:55 PM
I already created "draftmosphere" earlier today. The Planet can't create this many new words in a day. You'll have to wait a few days, I'm afraid.

That wasn't in my packet when I signed up. Where did I put that damn thing anyway?

SNR
04-06-2012, 06:05 PM
That wasn't in my packet when I signed up. Where did I put that damn thing anyway?You have the 2nd edition. We're up to the 10th edition now.

Chocolate Hog
04-06-2012, 06:13 PM
Tannehill doesn't fold under pressure like Gabbert.

Chocolate Hog
04-06-2012, 06:29 PM
Nobody knows if that is true. I think that Gabbert should have been a 2nd round grade, much like Tannegill. For whatever reason, these men won't get a chance to learn an offense. They will be drafted in the top 20. They will get 20& percent of the snaps in practice, and be expected to win games soon ifr not faster.

How do you not know if that's true? Watch Tannehill game tape.

Chiefnj2
04-06-2012, 06:50 PM
Tannehill doesn't fold under pressure like Gabbert.

What was his record against good teams? What was his TD to INT % in those games?

Frankie
04-06-2012, 07:05 PM
aTm ran a pread attack primarily. He may have gone under center more than Mizzou QB's did, but that doesn't make him any more NFL readythan Gabbert was.Seem like in the two games that I watched of Tannehill it was about half and half, snapwise. But I remember on the direct snaps from the center he looked like he belonged.

And when you talk about potential development in a player, much less a QB, it makes me really, really not want to trade up to take him.I guess you want a QBOTF to take the field now. I am looking at it long term. I'm resigned to the fact that we won't see much of Tannehill, if any, in his first year. But if he is as developable (I just coined a word) as it appears I'd rather start that process right now rather than next year. Also if he is indeed a fast developer, I think even our coaches can do it.

I'd pull for him if we took him at 11. If we move up, I'll be pissed.I won't be pissed, but very nervous.

OnTheWarpath58
04-06-2012, 07:22 PM
A QB taken at 11 shouldn't need to be "developed".

Frankie
04-06-2012, 07:23 PM
A QB taken at 11 shouldn't need to be "developed".

These are the times my friend. I much rather trade down to late 1st and get Tanny, but that is now a pipe dream.

OnTheWarpath58
04-06-2012, 07:25 PM
These are the times my friend. I much rather trade down to late 1st and get Tanny, but that is now a pipe dream.

These aren't "the times" at all.

If you have to "develop" a QB you took 11th or higher, you reached, and reached big.

Chief Roundup
04-06-2012, 09:03 PM
These aren't "the times" at all.

If you have to "develop" a QB you took 11th or higher, you reached, and reached big.

I understand this thought and agree with it. But I truely believe that the new rookie slotting and the importance of the QB position being what they are teams are going to take QBs a lot higher than they would of in the past.
I can see the top 3 or 4 QBs going in the top 15 almost every year even if that 3rd or 4th would of gone in the 2cd round in years past.

Chocolate Hog
04-07-2012, 12:02 AM
These aren't "the times" at all.

If you have to "develop" a QB you took 11th or higher, you reached, and reached big.

So who would you draft?

milkman
04-07-2012, 08:18 AM
These aren't "the times" at all.

If you have to "develop" a QB you took 11th or higher, you reached, and reached big.

I disagree with this.

If you believe a QB has the tools to be a franchise QB, even if you feel he needs development, you take him.

htismaqe
04-07-2012, 08:56 AM
McCoy regressed after Daboll left and Matt Moore looked good under his coaching as well.

Zorn was a west coast player and coach and could probably pick up where Sherman left off.

We also have an extreme amount of talent on offense to work with and a top ten defense to keep him from having to force things.

I wouldn't start him as a rook, but I would hand him the keys to the "lambo" going into year 2.

No problem.

Please stop propping up Brian Daboll, you're better (and smarter) than that.

htismaqe
04-07-2012, 08:58 AM
It has NOTHING to do with being a fan of Nebraska and EVERYTHING to do with calling a 5th round pick a legit franchise QB. Infact it's not only Nebraska people you can go back and read Hamas's comments when we drafted Stanzi or OTW's thoughts on Stanzi. Those aren't Nebraska people.

I wasn't here when we drafted Stanzi I don't believe. Hamas isn't here anymore.

That leaves you, Bug, and a couple other Husker fans that were all over my shit when I got back because I was a Hawkeye fan and you had a bone to pick with Boss.

htismaqe
04-07-2012, 09:01 AM
Haha

I think it's ****ing hilarious that you think it's my fault people call you a homer.

You obviously can't read and are unable to accept reality. But that's ok, I don't care and never did. I've been called a lot worse than a homer around here and I lived through it.

htismaqe
04-07-2012, 09:05 AM
So I'm probably gonna have to get on the Tannehill bandwagon now. My daughter thinks the Chiefs need to "do whatever it takes to replace Matt Cassel".

She said the Chiefs have "no shot at Luck" and she loves Robert Griffin but knows he's going to the Redskins.

She gets all this shit from listening to me - the only thing I haven't said that she has is the Chiefs need to draft Tannehill. Maybe I'm sending her subliminal messages? :)

Two years ago, she was all over Eric Berry (he's still her favorite player and she was crushed when she found out he wouldn't be playing in the Minnesota game, which we attended). Last year, she said the Chiefs needed a WR.

evolve27
04-07-2012, 09:10 AM
So I'm probably gonna have to get on the Tannehill bandwagon now. My daughter thinks the Chiefs need to "do whatever it takes to replace Matt Cassel".

She said the Chiefs have "no shot at Luck" and she loves Robert Griffin but knows he's going to the Redskins.

She gets all this shit from listening to me - the only thing I haven't said that she has is the Chiefs need to draft Tannehill. Maybe I'm sending her subliminal messages? :)

Two years ago, she was all over Eric Berry (he's still her favorite player and she was crushed when she found out he wouldn't be playing in the Minnesota game, which we attended). Last year, she said the Chiefs needed a WR.


She's a prophet

milkman
04-07-2012, 09:10 AM
I wasn't here when we drafted Stanzi I don't believe. Hamas isn't here anymore.

That leaves you, Bug, and a couple other Husker fans that were all over my shit when I got back because I was a Hawkeye fan and you had a bone to pick with Boss.

I'm not sure who the other Husker fans are, but Bo's Pelini is a dumbass who seems to have some axe to grind about Iowa.

I have no idea what the hell that is about, since I only watch college football to watch prospects and have no rooting interest in any team.

Chiefshrink
04-07-2012, 09:29 AM
These aren't "the times" at all.

If you have to "develop" a QB you took 11th or higher, you reached, and reached big.

You are right on in years past. Hindsight is always 20/20. That is why Bellicheck took Brady in the first rd. NOT ! To some degree gone are the days of Brady and Rogers type development because the pressure to win now is so great. Now that the NFL is becoming a passing frenzy league thus more QB driven and successful playoff type QB's get fewer and fewer as time goes on, the league gets more desperate reaching with QB's in the first rd.

What makes it even more difficult to hit on a "reach QB" is the fact that the majority of the college game has gone to the spread which prevents the college QB to fully develop NFL skills in reading D's and develop good footwork. The positive of Tannehill is at least he feels comfortable working from under center and played half of his time there.

You and Milk are both right.

Common sense say's Tannehill is a risky reach at 11.

Milk is right that you must take a chance given the changing circumstances of the NFL game that is now predominately a QB driven league and you feel the kid can play.

Frankie
04-07-2012, 10:12 AM
These aren't "the times" at all.

If you have to "develop" a QB you took 11th or higher, you reached, and reached big.

I disagree with this.

If you believe a QB has the tools to be a franchise QB, even if you feel he needs development, you take him.

I argue that except Luck, EVERY QB this year needs to go through some development. Even maybe Luck.

Once we accept this it's a matter of when the QB will get there. RG3 may need less development, but Tannehill may take a shorter time for his longer way to go. I'm, of course speculating based on how fast he has developed in college.

BossChief
04-07-2012, 10:37 AM
I wasn't here when we drafted Stanzi I don't believe. Hamas isn't here anymore.

That leaves you, Bug, and a couple other Husker fans that were all over my shit when I got back because I was a Hawkeye fan and you had a bone to pick with Boss.That's just stupid.

They have a "bone to pick" with HOMERS that think a quarterback drafted in the fifth round is a legit franchise quarterback. Regardless of school...AND THEY ARE RIGHT. We would probably say the same thing if Nebraska fans were proclaiming a 5th round quarterback from Nebraska as a legit franchise quarterback prospect.

The fact Stanzi is that quarterback and he went to IOWA and YOU ARE AN IOWA FAN is what they have disagreed with you on AND CALL YOU AN IOWA HOMER FOR.

EVERYONE ELSE CAN SEE THAT.

The reason I sometimes get singled out on that is because I have thought that since RSs mid junior year and have been talking about it since then on here. The spotlight was put on me once we drafted him because of those
conversations.

If you were here at that time, you would have been saying the exact same shit.

Go read my "Stanzi in the second? Yes or no?" thread and bump the posts of mine that you don't agree with...if you have watched as much as I have (all of his games) then there aren't many things you can disagree with me on in that thread.

BTW hamas is only gone for a year from the Pittsburgh/Denver playoff game. He said he would leave for a year if Denver beat Pittsburgh.

You obviously can't read and are unable to accept reality. But that's ok, I don't care and never did. I've been called a lot worse than a homer around here and I lived through it.what a joke.

Stop being a bleeding vagina and making foolish claims.

If you want to stop being called an Iowa homer, stop calling 5th round quarterbacks of theirs "legit franchise quarterbacks"

It's as simple as that, but like I said...continue to whine and blame shift all you want.

I'm not sure who the other Husker fans are, but Bo's Pelini is a dumbass who seems to have some axe to grind about Iowa.

I have no idea what the hell that is about, since I only watch college football to watch prospects and have no rooting interest in any team.that's probably where he is getting mixed up. He sees billay going around being billay and thinks that's what most think when thats about as far from the truth as possible.

Oh well.

Canofbier
04-07-2012, 11:10 AM
From an nfl.com list of top prospects: (http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d82821dd1/article/hot-100-plenty-of-draftstock-movement-as-pro-days-wrap-up?module=HP11_hot_topics)

6. Ryan Tannehill, QB, Texas A&M (7)

Had a great workout on in front of 32 teams and moved well, especially to his left, which is not common for right-handed quarterbacks. He completed 65 of 68 passes, including two drops. He had more drops last year during the regular season than any other quarterback.

The bolded part is a statistic that I find interesting. It's not like you can project exactly how his season would have gone without those drops, but drops can turn into momentum-killing plays at times, sometimes even interceptions. Maybe his season would be thought of in a more positive light if not for this stat? I wouldn't know, I never saw any of his games.

Shaid
04-07-2012, 11:20 AM
I disagree with this.

If you believe a QB has the tools to be a franchise QB, even if you feel he needs development, you take him.

Agree 100%. Was Marino a reach? How about Rothlisberger or Rodgers? I don't care if they have to spend every single practice alone in one-on-one drills with a coach for the first year. Grab the guy *if* you believe he's a franchise quality player. QB's about the only position that you are ok to reach big on.

Chocolate Hog
04-07-2012, 11:53 AM
I'm not sure who the other Husker fans are, but Bo's Pelini is a dumbass who seems to have some axe to grind about Iowa.

I have no idea what the hell that is about, since I only watch college football to watch prospects and have no rooting interest in any team.

You're an angry bastard who makes shit up about me all the time. Please stop.

milkman
04-07-2012, 11:56 AM
You're an angry bastard who makes shit up about me all the time. Please stop.

Make shit up?

No.

You're just a stupid fucker.

I'm not making that up.

milkman
04-07-2012, 11:57 AM
BTW, stupid fucker, show me where I made any shit up about your useless dumbass.

Chocolate Hog
04-07-2012, 12:01 PM
Make shit up?

No.

You're just a stupid ****er.

I'm not making that up.

Yes on top of being a bitter person you have continually misquoted things I have said. Where is this imaginary axe to grind about Iowa? I've made two negative comments regarding Stanzi and the quality of players that come to the NFL. Some non-Husker fans have agreed with me on both takes.

You're just a bitter ass old man who resorts to the same lame ass insults with whomever you disagree with.

Chocolate Hog
04-07-2012, 12:02 PM
BTW, stupid ****er, show me where I made any shit up about your useless dumbass.

Useless? Are we trying to get personal here?

Forgot it takes a Rhodes Scholar to use dumbass every other word. Please share more of your genius with us.

milkman
04-07-2012, 12:07 PM
Yes on top of being a bitter person you have continually misquoted things I have said. Where is this imaginary axe to grind about Iowa? I've made two negative comments regarding Stanzi and the quality of players that come to the NFL. Some non-Husker fans have agreed with me on both takes.

You're just a bitter ass old man who resorts to the same lame ass insults with whomever you disagree with.

Two negative comments.


Holy shit!

That's laughable.

Chocolate Hog
04-07-2012, 12:09 PM
Two negative comments.


Holy shit!

That's laughable.

Once again making up shit.

whoman69
04-07-2012, 12:13 PM
From an nfl.com list of top prospects: (http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d82821dd1/article/hot-100-plenty-of-draftstock-movement-as-pro-days-wrap-up?module=HP11_hot_topics)



The bolded part is a statistic that I find interesting. It's not like you can project exactly how his season would have gone without those drops, but drops can turn into momentum-killing plays at times, sometimes even interceptions. Maybe his season would be thought of in a more positive light if not for this stat? I wouldn't know, I never saw any of his games.

Cassel once led the league in that category because he could not put the ball in a good position for the receiver to catch it. The definition for drops is very vague. I can remember Bowe credited with drops on balls behind him and low simply because he got his hands on it. You don't get credit for almost completing a pass.

milkman
04-07-2012, 12:16 PM
Once again making up shit.

Yeah, I'm mking shit up.

I guess that's why Parker cited you specifically as a guy that calls him out for being an Iowa homer because of his stance on Stanzi.

You're an idiot for even pretending that you only have two negative comments on the subject.

Canofbier
04-07-2012, 12:19 PM
Cassel once led the league in that category because he could not put the ball in a good position for the receiver to catch it. The definition for drops is very vague. I can remember Bowe credited with drops on balls behind him and low simply because he got his hands on it. You don't get credit for almost completing a pass.

Yeah; like I said, I never watch the guy so I didn't have such a great read on what the cause of his drops might have been.

Chocolate Hog
04-07-2012, 12:22 PM
Yeah, I'm mking shit up.

I guess that's why Parker cited you specifically as a guy that calls him out for being an Iowa homer because of his stance on Stanzi.

You're an idiot for even pretending that you only have two negative comments on the subject.

Yeah you are making shit up. You make it sound like I bash every Iowa player because I'm some huge Husker homer. If you would take my dick out of your mouth for just a second you would see I posted this the other day:


Prater in the 5th round would be a steal. The guy will be a starter in the league for someone. I don't think we draft Barron.


I don't know where Parker gets that from I have no problem with the guy infact I think he gives solid takes. My bone to pick with Boss had nothing to do with him being a Hawkeye fan. I never see him post about the team on this board usually it's about individual players. Anyway my bone to pick with Boss was his homerism of Pioli and the Chiefs last year after what I thought was a pretty mediocre free agency. This off season he might be the one I have agreed with the most (which is scary). I'm totally on the Tannehill bandwagon and he's been one of the ones leading it.

Bewbies
04-07-2012, 12:24 PM
Outside of some Alabama fans I personally found Hawkeye and Husker fans to be the most insufferable dickheads in the world. Homervision galore, so seeing you bastards fight it out comes as no surprise.

milkman
04-07-2012, 12:28 PM
Yeah you are making shit up. You make it sound like I bash every Iowa player because I'm some huge Husker homer. If you would take my dick out of your mouth for just a second you would see I posted this the other day:

I don't give a rat's who you are a fan of.

I just know that you have some kind of axe to grind when it comes to Iowa, and this http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=257743&highlight=Stanzi displays that.

And there's at least two sarcastic negative Stanzi comments in that thread alone.

Chocolate Hog
04-07-2012, 12:34 PM
I don't know how many times I can say this.


It.has.nothing.to.do.with.Iowa.

At one point last year I wanted them to play Stanzi because Palko was so bad. Yeah I've watched Ricky Stanzi play several times thought he was nothing special. It wasn't because he played for Iowa either. It's because I saw him make dumbass throws and dumbass decisions. Don't like Blaine Gabbert either and it has nothing to do with him having played at Mizzou.


Anyway i'm done arguing about this in a thread about Ryan Tannehill.

Canofbier
04-07-2012, 12:59 PM
Get a room, lovers.

Okie_Apparition
04-07-2012, 08:00 PM
Tannehill could be dark horse pick for the Chiefs
By ADAM TEICHER
The Kansas City Star
Updated: 2012-04-07T22:44:10Z

As any long-suffering Kansas City football fan knows, the Chiefs generally have looked another way when it comes to the possibility of drafting a quarterback in the first round. Just considering recent years, they passed twice on the chance to get Joe Flacco in 2008, opting instead for linemen Glenn Dorsey and Branden Albert.

The following season, they could have drafted Mark Sanchez, or a local kid, Josh Freeman, but went for another lineman, Tyson Jackson.

The Chiefs could find themselves at another franchise crossroads of sorts this year. Picking 11th in the first round, they could have a shot at another tantalizing quarterback prospect, Ryan Tannehill of Texas A&M.

It’s uncertain whether Tannehill will be available to the Chiefs. He has to pass through quarterback-needy teams in Cleveland at the fourth pick and Miami at No. 8. There’s also the possibility a team in line behind the Chiefs, possibly Seattle, could trade up in order to draft Tannehill.

So it’s far from a sure thing. But if Tannehill is sitting there at 11, the Chiefs just might break from tradition and pick a quarterback in the first round.

Their situation has changed dramatically since 2008, when their roster was aging and so pocked with holes that it seemed almost wasteful to draft a quarterback. In 2009, the Chiefs had just traded for Matt Cassel and were committed to him as their starter.

In 2012, they are entering a draft with as close to a fully stocked roster as they’ve had in many years. The Chiefs could use upgrades at some positions, but they could line up and play a game today — and be competitive — with the players they have.

The Chiefs have Cassel, Brady Quinn and Ricky Stanzi at quarterback, making it one of the thinnest positions on their roster. Cassel missed the last half of last season because of a broken hand and is still trying to establish himself as a dependable NFL starter. Quinn is a former first-round pick, but the Broncos thought so little of him that he didn’t play in a game in his two seasons in Denver. Stanzi was a fifth-round draft pick last year and didn’t play as a rookie.

Because their roster is so complete, the Chiefs believe they have built a team that can reasonably compete for the AFC West championship for the foreseeable future. If that vision comes true, they won’t be in position again to draft a franchise-type quarterback for years.

All of that makes for a perfect storm when it comes to drafting a quarterback, and the Chiefs appear to be at least examining the possibility. They met with Tannehill at the combine and he said he had a private workout for them last week.

“He has everything you look for,” ESPN analyst Todd McShay said recently. “He belongs in the top 10 and has a chance to be an elite quarterback in the NFL.

“To me, you’ve got Andrew Luck at No. 1, then a little bit of a dropoff. There is a difference between (Tannehill) and Robert Griffin III. I don’t think the difference between Robert Griffin III and Tannehill is that big.”

Tannehill, 6 feet 4 and 221 pounds, played wide receiver for much of his time at Texas A&M. He was later moved to quarterback, where he wound up starting his last season and a half. His statistics — he threw 15 interceptions last season — weren’t across-the-board solid, as teams might wish from a top prospect.

But drafting a quarterback is always a gamble. That’s one reason the Chiefs haven’t gone that route, instead preferring to do the safer thing.

Since he’s relatively new as a quarterback, the key to Tannehill’s development might be patience. Since the Chiefs have Cassel and, if need be, Quinn and Stanzi, patient is something they can afford to be with a rookie quarterback.

“When you look at Tannehill and how quickly he’s risen in only 19 starts, and the production isn’t elite and the completion percentage (isn’t great) and all of that, I would have a very difficult time passing on him (in the top 5),” McShay said. “I just think that he has everything you look for in a future franchise quarterback if you develop him properly and you’re willing to be patient.

“If you bring in Tannehill and sit him for ideally a year, or the majority of the year, and put him in towards the end of the year to get him some experience, I just think that you’re looking at an organization that has its future franchise quarterback. He’s a guy with all the physical tools, the size, arm strength, accuracy, which continues to improve. Has the right mentality, can handle pressure, and has intangibles through the roof.”

The Chiefs haven’t seemed sold on Cassel during the offseason. At the least, they’re giving off mixed signals.
“That consistency … I think that’s the biggest thing with Matt,” Chiefs coach Romeo Crennel said. “I think he’s excited about this year, about having Brian Daboll as our offensive coordinator, because he knows Brian and he knows the system Brian brings, and I’ve talked to Matt several times in the offseason and … he’s ready to go to work. He can’t wait for April 16th (start of the Chiefs’ offseason program) to get here so he can start getting into the playbook.

“If he can develop that consistency like we had part of the time in 2010, where we weren’t turning the ball over — we were moving the ball offensively and we were scoring some points — if we can get back to that, that’s what I’m looking for from him.”

The Chiefs started the offseason by saying they intended to find competition for Cassel, then watched as their best possibility for that, Kyle Orton, left as a free-agent for Dallas, where he will back up Tony Romo.

They settled instead for Quinn, but there’s still room for another quarterback, particularly one with Tannehill’s potential.

“You never know what team,” Tannehill said. “There’s always a shocker that jumps in there or jumps out. You never know what’s going to happen. I’m excited about the teams that potentially could be in the quarterback hunt and the opportunities it presents.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/07/3541710/tannehill-could-be-dark-horse.html#storylink=cpy

Mr_Tomahawk
04-07-2012, 08:08 PM
He won't make it past the fins.

Chocolate Hog
04-07-2012, 08:19 PM
He won't make it past the fins.

I bet he does. There's lots of smoke for a guy whos a project.

O.city
04-07-2012, 08:21 PM
If something crazy happened and Tannehill and Richardson were available at 11, who you guys taking?

Chocolate Hog
04-07-2012, 08:23 PM
I'm all in on Tannehill. Won't win anything without a QB.

Setsuna
04-07-2012, 08:24 PM
I bet he does. There's lots of smoke for a guy whos a project.

He doesn't make it past the Jags /thread

O.city
04-07-2012, 08:28 PM
If Tannehill is there, take him. Don't know that I would trade up though.

whoman69
04-08-2012, 12:15 PM
"Tannehill doesn’t even have two full seasons under his belt as a quarterback; he played wide receiver for the Aggies during the majority of his career. On tape, he struggles with downfield accuracy but throws a very catchable and on-target ball on the short to intermediate levels.

I failed to see him go through a complete progression, and he threw to his check-down receiver more than any other prospect in the draft. Cleveland has been rumored to be intrigued by Tannehill with the fourth overall pick, but that is a little high for my taste for a quarterback who is being drafted totally on potential."

- Brian Billick

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Andrew-Luck-Robert-Griffin-III-NFL-Draft-quarterbacks-040412

Let's move up in the draft and get Matt Cassel Jr.

jspchief
04-08-2012, 12:24 PM
"Tannehill doesn’t even have two full seasons under his belt as a quarterback; he played wide receiver for the Aggies during the majority of his career. On tape, he struggles with downfield accuracy but throws a very catchable and on-target ball on the short to intermediate levels.

I failed to see him go through a complete progression, and he threw to his check-down receiver more than any other prospect in the draft. Cleveland has been rumored to be intrigued by Tannehill with the fourth overall pick, but that is a little high for my taste for a quarterback who is being drafted totally on potential."

- Brian Billick

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Andrew-Luck-Robert-Griffin-III-NFL-Draft-quarterbacks-040412

Let's move up in the draft and get Matt Cassel Jr.

What's Billick's professional opinion of Kyle Boller?

Nightfyre
04-08-2012, 01:25 PM
"Tannehill doesn’t even have two full seasons under his belt as a quarterback; he played wide receiver for the Aggies during the majority of his career. On tape, he struggles with downfield accuracy but throws a very catchable and on-target ball on the short to intermediate levels.

I failed to see him go through a complete progression, and he threw to his check-down receiver more than any other prospect in the draft. Cleveland has been rumored to be intrigued by Tannehill with the fourth overall pick, but that is a little high for my taste for a quarterback who is being drafted totally on potential."

- Brian Billick

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Andrew-Luck-Robert-Griffin-III-NFL-Draft-quarterbacks-040412

Let's move up in the draft and get Matt Cassel Jr.
Comparing Tannehill to Matt Cassel is completely disingenuous.

whoman69
04-08-2012, 01:47 PM
What's Billick's professional opinion of Kyle Boller?

Must have liked him better than Jeff Blake or Chris Redman.

whoman69
04-08-2012, 01:48 PM
Comparing Tannehill to Matt Cassel is completely disingenuous.

Anymore than saying we should move up to draft Tannehill?

Nightfyre
04-08-2012, 01:49 PM
Anymore than saying we should move up to draft Tannehill?

I don't think we should. If he's there, I'd probably take a chance on him though. Unless we have someone who wants to trade up and can snag a first next year.

ChiefMojo
04-08-2012, 01:52 PM
The description Coach Billick described Tannehill was Matt "Freaking" Cassel!

Nightfyre
04-08-2012, 01:53 PM
The description Coach Billick described Tannehill was Matt "Freaking" Cassel!

Not really. But okay.

milkman
04-08-2012, 02:08 PM
The description Coach Billick described Tannehill was Matt "Freaking" Cassel!

Yeah, except that Matt Cassel lacks accuracy on intermediate routes.

That, and the fact that Cassel is approaching 30 years old and has 8 years in the league.

He is what he is.

Tannehill needs to work on his feet when making throws, as he tends to stay on his back foot too long before his follow through, and that is easily corrected with coaching.

Nightfyre
04-08-2012, 02:09 PM
Yeah, except that Matt Cassel lacks accuracy on intermediate routes.

That, and the fact that Cassel is approaching 30 years old and has 8 years in the league.

He is what he is.

Tannehill needs to work on his feet when making throws, as he tends to stay on his back foot too long before his follow through, and that is easily corrected with coaching.

Tannehill has a stronger arm and legitimate upside. How's that for a difference? Just because he wasn't asked to go through progressions doesn't mean he can't be coached to.

jspchief
04-08-2012, 02:24 PM
The description Coach Billick described Tannehill was Matt "Freaking" Cassel!Billick is jobless because he was an utter failure at finding a QB to go with a historic defense.

milkman
04-08-2012, 02:42 PM
Billick is jobless because Ozzie Newsome was an utter failure at finding a QB to go with a historic defense.

FYP

Chocolate Hog
04-08-2012, 03:47 PM
I never understood why Billick never got another job.

Billick > Crennel

whoman69
04-08-2012, 06:28 PM
I never understood why Billick never got another job.

Billick > Crennel

I'd have to say of all the Super Bowl winning coaches out there, a guy who is supposed to be an offensive genius from his time in Minnesota who could not put together an offense in his only HC start, puts him low man on the totem pole. He's the only coach to cut the defending Super Bowl winning QB. Grbac took the money and ran. Boller was obviously not the guy. We don't know who pulled the trigger on that, Newsome or Billick. They picked up McNair and he was a shell of his former self but won in 2006. In 2007 when McNair physically fell apart they had to go back to Boller and Billick was gone. I just think teams looked at him more as a coordinator than the head guy and his ego wouldn't accept the step back.

KCChiefsFan88
04-08-2012, 07:33 PM
Tannehill's future as a legit NFL starting QB is debatable at best.

So the Chiefs options are draft a guy who probably won't beat out Cassel (or even Quinn) in the depth chart next season and stake your long term future on a big question mark.

This is the consequence of the Chiefs failing to land Manning, re-sign Orton, or trade up to #2 to draft RGIII. There is essentially no realistic option to replace Cassel under center in 2012.

Coogs
04-08-2012, 08:39 PM
There is essentially no realistic option to replace Cassel under center in 2012.

I've said this before, but I think Stanzi can be the guy. Dude showed some moxie in his brief chances last August.

O.city
04-08-2012, 08:42 PM
Stanzi is gonna have to be the guy, if you are hoping someone starts other than Cassel this year.

milkman
04-08-2012, 08:43 PM
I've siad the before, but I think Stanzi can be the guy. Dude showed some moxi in his brief chances last August.

I agree, nd have said the same thing about Stazi showing moxie.

But it was the preseason, and there's a lot of preseason all pros who never show anything when it actually matters.

I want more eggs in my basket.

O.city
04-08-2012, 08:45 PM
At one point or another, you have to see what you have got in Stanzi.


I don't really know how they are gonna do that, without an injury or Stanzi absolutely blazing it up during training camp.

DeezNutz
04-08-2012, 08:48 PM
At one point or another, you have to see what you have got in Stanzi.


I don't really know how they are gonna do that, without an injury or Stanzi absolutely blazing it up during training camp.

Evaluation in practice, and fans will be forced to trust the staff and FO.

Fifth-round picks don't demand anything, so this franchise doesn't (I'm assuming) feel like it "has" to do anything relative to Stanzi.

YayMike
04-09-2012, 06:09 AM
I agree, nd have said the same thing about Stazi showing moxie.

But it was the preseason, and there's a lot of preseason all pros who never show anything when it actually matters.

I want more eggs in my basket.

I agree and what I would actually like to see, though it won't happen, is an open competition in pre-season / camp where they rotate starting reps for QB with the rest of the starting offense. It would be easier to do with just Cassel / Stanzi, but if we somehow draft Tannehill I have no problem rotating all three. Shame it won't happen.

If it somehow happens, I have no doubt that Stanzi would outshine Cassel.

Mr. Laz
04-09-2012, 11:41 AM
this guy is skeptical

http://msn.foxsports.com/video/NFL?vid=75d054ee-8676-47ff-8446-99a4e5ed62ed

Chiefnj2
04-09-2012, 12:07 PM
this guy is skeptical

http://msn.foxsports.com/video/NFL?vid=75d054ee-8676-47ff-8446-99a4e5ed62ed

It would be nice if he gave a reason. Also, kind of stupid to have an analyst talking about not drafting the kid while highlights of the player are on the screen behind him.

Saccopoo
04-09-2012, 12:14 PM
this guy is skeptical

http://msn.foxsports.com/video/NFL?vid=75d054ee-8676-47ff-8446-99a4e5ed62ed

As we all should be. I still can't figure out the allure behind Tannehill. He looks fourth rounder at best when you watch the games, and that's being generous and considering he's got growth. Anyone picking him in the first round, let alone the top ten, has got to be considered certifiably insane.

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-09-2012, 12:17 PM
Billick is jobless because he was an utter failure at finding a QB to go with a historic defense.

They still haven't found one. (Not a Flaccid fan)

Austin Ed
04-09-2012, 12:27 PM
Do we have any A&*M fans on the board that can tell us about the guy.

You have a UT fan on the board who saw Tannehill play in person and on TV a lot. OVERRATED and not worth an #11 and certainly not worth trading up for. Look at his QBR and the A&M game results. IMO, he is a late 1st round at best. Kiper is saying basically the same thing but I base my comments on personal observation---not on Kiper's comments.

Chocolate Hog
04-09-2012, 12:31 PM
Mcshay said something like the difference between Griffin and Tannehill isn't much lol

rico
04-09-2012, 12:36 PM
Anyone watch the A&M vs. Texas game on ESPN Classic last night? If so, anyone as unimpressed with him as I was? Very Cassel-esque. I wrote this in another thread, I don't want to go from being stuck in Cass-hell to Tanne-hell.

King_Chief_Fan
04-09-2012, 12:38 PM
well, this thread has done a 180

someone do a poll!

evolve27
04-10-2012, 07:31 PM
Anyone watch the A&M vs. Texas game on ESPN Classic last night? If so, anyone as unimpressed with him as I was? Very Cassel-esque. I wrote this in another thread, I don't want to go from being stuck in Cass-hell to Tanne-hell.

:clap:

evolve27
04-10-2012, 07:32 PM
Mcshay said something like the difference between Griffin and Tannehill isn't much lol

ROFL

McShay has lost touch with the draft

KCDC
04-10-2012, 07:55 PM
The Tannehill hype is a clever ruse by the teams holding the #3 and the #7 picks, in the desperate hope that someone will trade up on false rumors that Cleveland or Miami will take him.

Setsuna
04-10-2012, 08:06 PM
ROFL

McShay has lost touch with the draft

So have a lot of members on CP claiming to want him. Ah well.

Austin Ed
04-10-2012, 08:18 PM
Outside of some Alabama fans I personally found Hawkeye and Husker fans to be the most insufferable dickheads in the world. Homervision galore, so seeing you bastards fight it out comes as no surprise.

This is a Kansas City Chiefs & pro football blog. I get tired of college football fights taking over the discussion. (Of course, I also get real tired of seeing Cardinal and Cornhusker red gear at Arrowhead versus Chiefs gear.)

evolve27
04-10-2012, 08:19 PM
So have a lot of members on CP claiming to want him. Ah well.

I would rather get a QB next year or draft a K. Moore in the 6th or 7th to compete against B. Quinn for 3rd string. Tannewho'll will be a Dolphin.

Brock
04-10-2012, 08:20 PM
B. Quinn third string, LOL

Mr. Laz
04-10-2012, 08:45 PM
ROFL

McShay has lost touch with the draft
McShay and Kilper both do what the producers want them to do. Generate discussion by providing an exaggerated opinion leading up to the draft.

the finally ratings and judgments will be the real opinions.

rico
04-10-2012, 08:54 PM
Been reading the A&M boards a bit. Their about as mixed about him being a 1st round prospect as this board is. I don't really know how to perceive that... you'd think that his own fan base would be biased towards him being a 1st round prospect considering the buzz he has been receiving lately... then again, they did finish 7-6 overall and 4-5 in Big 12 play, so negativity will inevitably be attached to a QB who led his team to a season as mediocre as that.

Most of them think the reason Mel Kiper stated that Tannehill is "over-hyped" is because ESPN hates Texas A&M. LMAO

morphius
04-10-2012, 09:37 PM
Been reading the A&M boards a bit. Their about as mixed about him being a 1st round prospect as this board is. I don't really know how to perceive that... you'd think that his own fan base would be biased towards him being a 1st round prospect considering the buzz he has been receiving lately... then again, they did finish 7-6 overall and 4-5 in Big 12 play, so negativity will inevitably be attached to a QB who led his team to a season as mediocre as that.

Most of them think the reason Mel Kiper stated that Tannehill is "over-hyped" is because ESPN hates Texas A&M. LMAO
Just says to me that he is what we think he is, a guy that is going to take a good amount of time before he is ready for the pro game. If Cassel were better it wouldn't bug me so bad drafting a guy like him, but with him being a few years behind by the time he is any good we will be ready to move on.

bricks
04-10-2012, 11:06 PM
McShay and Kilper both do what the producers want them to do. Generate discussion by providing an exaggerated opinion leading up to the draft.

the finally ratings and judgments will be the real opinions.

Exactly.

BossChief
04-10-2012, 11:09 PM
If you view Tannehills physical tools as that of a franchise quarterback, you bring him in for an interview and see what he has in-between the ears to access his mental ability to handle the NFL defenses using your offensive system.

We got that far at the combine.

Then, you go back and watch the tape again and find situations similar to those he would face in the NFL and see if he reacts similarly on the field as he did in your interview.

You also look for knocks on his game from early starts and then compare them to starts towards the end of his college career to see how quickly and effectively he learned and translated his mental ability from the film rooms and practice fields to gamedays.

If you like what you see at that point, you go to his proday to see him make the throws you didn't see in the film.

If you still like what you see, you request a private workout (which we have done with RT) and try to assess if his deficiencies are things that are coachable or not. You watch him do the things he would do in your specific system and then ask him specific questions about what he sees and why certain decisions were made in games that you don't like...again, to determine how far his development is relative to how you would use him and how he responds to said situations.

If he passes all those tests, YOU DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET HIM.

It's really as simple as that.

You don't do that much work and then sit back and hope he falls to you.

You either make a statement that "this is our guy" and you move up and take him and then do everything in your power as a franchise to help him succeed, or you don't even take him if he falls to your pick.

This is even more so the case with Miami sitting at 8 and having RTs old coach there and Pioli HAS TO KNOW THAT.

I'm of the opinion that there are ONLY TWO options for this draft...trade up for Tannehill or trade down for almost anybody.

I dont think there is a good scenario that we stay at 11 and pick.

I really don't.

If we believe in Tannehill, move up and pay the price...if we don't, trade down and try to get to a superbowl the Baltimore/TB way with a stellar defense and average offense lead by a game manager.

Fruit Ninja
04-11-2012, 12:25 AM
And we tried that in the 90's and lost. None of them blow outs, but just not enough fire power lol

Okie_Apparition
04-11-2012, 11:15 AM
Jump in front of the Dolphins & force them to trade for Cassel
KEEP FUCKING DOUBTING SCOTT MOTHER FUCKING PIOLI!!

whoman69
04-11-2012, 12:22 PM
Moving up for Tannehill is an over-reaction by fans to a team that is franchise QB starved. I don't think anyone here can truly say that Ryan Tannehill is a franchise QB with as much certainty as they could say for RG3. He is more on par with Ponder whom the Viking made a huge reach for last year. All this talk about having to reach for a QB because the Vikings did is a self-serving argument. Ponder probably isn't the answer, and the Vikings have been a pretty inept franchise over the last decade. Twice they got their first round pick in late and lost position. Tannehill does not have a body of work that merits first round selection. He has enough questions about his ability that he is not a first round selection. He is only a first round selection because he is a QB and because many are desperate. Its a desperation move and not the right one.

Micjones
04-11-2012, 12:39 PM
If you view Tannehills physical tools as that of a franchise quarterback, you bring him in for an interview and see what he has in-between the ears to access his mental ability to handle the NFL defenses using your offensive system.

We got that far at the combine.

Then, you go back and watch the tape again and find situations similar to those he would face in the NFL and see if he reacts similarly on the field as he did in your interview.

You also look for knocks on his game from early starts and then compare them to starts towards the end of his college career to see how quickly and effectively he learned and translated his mental ability from the film rooms and practice fields to gamedays.

If you like what you see at that point, you go to his proday to see him make the throws you didn't see in the film.

If you still like what you see, you request a private workout (which we have done with RT) and try to assess if his deficiencies are things that are coachable or not. You watch him do the things he would do in your specific system and then ask him specific questions about what he sees and why certain decisions were made in games that you don't like...again, to determine how far his development is relative to how you would use him and how he responds to said situations.

If he passes all those tests, YOU DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET HIM.

It's really as simple as that.

You don't do that much work and then sit back and hope he falls to you.

You either make a statement that "this is our guy" and you move up and take him and then do everything in your power as a franchise to help him succeed, or you don't even take him if he falls to your pick.

This is even more so the case with Miami sitting at 8 and having RTs old coach there and Pioli HAS TO KNOW THAT.

I'm of the opinion that there are ONLY TWO options for this draft...trade up for Tannehill or trade down for almost anybody.

I dont think there is a good scenario that we stay at 11 and pick.

I really don't.

If we believe in Tannehill, move up and pay the price...if we don't, trade down and try to get to a superbowl the Baltimore/TB way with a stellar defense and average offense lead by a game manager.

I want Tannehill myself, but I'd be fine with the Chiefs staying put at 11 and drafting DeCastro. I think he's an EXCELLENT pick at that spot and I believe he will be there. If he's not...and you can't get Tannehill? By all means, trade down.

Epic Fail 007
04-11-2012, 12:46 PM
Why would he be a 1st round prospect? There are like 5-6 QBs ranked above him. Unless 4 of them don't enter then he wont be a 1st rounder.
Not true. Hes the 3rd best qb in the draft.

Frankie
04-11-2012, 12:55 PM
I want Tannehill myself, but I'd be fine with the Chiefs staying put at 11 and drafting DeCastro. I think he's an EXCELLENT pick at that spot and I believe he will be there. If he's not...and you can't get Tannehill? By all means, trade down.

If Tanny is there at 11, you pick him and keep your fingers crossed.

Austin Ed
04-11-2012, 01:05 PM
As we all should be. I still can't figure out the allure behind Tannehill. He looks fourth rounder at best when you watch the games, and that's being generous and considering he's got growth. Anyone picking him in the first round, let alone the top ten, has got to be considered certifiably insane.

I absolutely agree and I did see him play in person at A&M. He is NOT a first round QB, or at the very, very best a late first round pick.

DaKCMan AP
04-11-2012, 01:42 PM
Jim Irsay @JimIrsay
Tannehill is a hidden gem in this draft,a quiet secret who was always sneaking up to #3..you want him, you better talk to Zigi The Biggie!
Retweeted by Adam Schefter.

Chocolate Hog
04-11-2012, 02:02 PM
Jim Irsay @JimIrsay
Tannehill is a hidden gem in this draft,a quiet secret who was always sneaking up to #3..you want him, you better talk to Zigi The Biggie!
Retweeted by Adam Schefter.

Irsay is full of shit. If Tannehill is a gem why don't the Colts trade the #1 pick?

rico
04-11-2012, 02:11 PM
Jim Irsay @JimIrsay
Tannehill is a hidden gem in this draft,a quiet secret who was always sneaking up to #3..you want him, you better talk to Zigi The Biggie!
Retweeted by Adam Schefter.

SABOTAGE!!!!!!!!!

BossChief
04-11-2012, 02:14 PM
Irsay is full of shit. If Tannehill is a gem why don't the Colts trade the #1 pick?

Because they need a game one starter.

Chocolate Hog
04-11-2012, 02:45 PM
Because they need a game one starter.

They can start Curtis Painter again. If Tannehill is a gem they trade out grab him and have multiple first round picks for the next 2-3 years. Some of which would be top 10 picks.

Epic Fail 007
04-11-2012, 02:49 PM
For years fans have wanted a qb drafted in the 1st. Now that it might happen you all crying. Whatever big babys. Then I saw someone saw draft Kellen palko moore. ROFL. Oh yes hes much better than tannehill. ROFL

BossChief
04-11-2012, 02:56 PM
I wouldn't give you Luck for 3 Tannehills.

ALs floor is much, much higher and his ceiling is higher as well, though not as high as some may think in comparison to Ryans.

Luck is pretty much a battle tested sure thing, but from a physical ceiling standpoint...I really don't think there is a huge difference between the two...the difference is Luck is pretty much a proven commodity while Tannehill is a but of a lottery ticket.

Tannehill is a gamble that could bust, leaving you look like a guy that won a million bucks in the lottery and lost it all in the casino if you trade out of the top pick this year.

Chocolate Hog
04-11-2012, 02:59 PM
I wouldn't either.


Irsay is full of shit.

whoman69
04-11-2012, 03:34 PM
Not true. Hes the 3rd best qb in the draft.

you're quoting someone from mid-season when he was not the 3rd ranked QB.

whoman69
04-11-2012, 03:50 PM
For years fans have wanted a qb drafted in the 1st. Now that it might happen you all crying. Whatever big babys. Then I saw someone saw draft Kellen palko moore. ROFL. Oh yes hes much better than tannehill. ROFL

Doesn't help to draft a first round QB just to say you drafted one. Ask the Vikings how that works out. Those who are against Tannehill don't believe he is a franchise QB worthy of a first round selection.

Nobody here is saying to draft moore in the first round. If they were that would be shot down in short order.

whoman69
04-11-2012, 03:52 PM
Jim Irsay @JimIrsay
Tannehill is a hidden gem in this draft,a quiet secret who was always sneaking up to #3..you want him, you better talk to Zigi The Biggie!
Retweeted by Adam Schefter.

Is that sneaking up like a robber? Whoever would move up to take that pick at #3 will get robbed.

Mr. Laz
04-11-2012, 04:27 PM
Because they need a game one starter.
no, they don't.

The colts are in full rebuild mode and have blown that shit up. I seriously doubt they are going to win for a couple of years regardless of the QB.

SNR
04-11-2012, 06:17 PM
Irsay's just trolling.

HOW LUCKY AM I THAT I GO THROUGH ONE HOF QB, DITCH HIM, LOSE OUT, AND GET THE NEXT VERSION OF THAT SAME HOF QB IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD?

I think the NFL should contract the Colts for being lucky punk-ass bitches

Setsuna
04-11-2012, 06:24 PM
I will say this for the LAST TIME. IF YOU TRADE UP TO GET THIS DUDE, YOU CAN FORGET DRAFTING ANY DEPTH FOR YOUR DEFENSE OR OFFENSE and you just bombed your draft.

Jerm
04-11-2012, 07:02 PM
I'm actually starting to come around on the idea of taking Tannehill...the more I read and see of him the more intrigued I am, can't lie.

Having said that, there is no way in hell that we should trade up to #3 to get him...maybe if Jacksonville wants to do business and he's still there, you think about it. If he falls to #11, I think you take him.

I just want some damn competition for Cassel.

Bewbies
04-11-2012, 07:04 PM
I will say this for the LAST TIME. IF YOU TRADE UP TO GET THIS DUDE, YOU CAN FORGET DRAFTING ANY DEPTH FOR YOUR DEFENSE OR OFFENSE and you just bombed your draft.

Cool story bro. I'm with you, depth is way more important than a starting QB.

BossChief
04-11-2012, 07:29 PM
I will say this for the LAST TIME. IF YOU TRADE UP TO GET THIS DUDE, YOU CAN FORGET DRAFTING ANY DEPTH FOR YOUR DEFENSE OR OFFENSE and you just bombed your draft.

It's a shame nobody has put a muzzle on your dumbass yet.

There is NO CHANCE Pioli moves to 3 to pick Tannehill due to cost...unless it's dirt cheap to do so.

If we move up, it will be to 4 or later and we will do it by using a second or less this year.

Pioli has flat out said he would never trade "multiple firsts" for any player in his interview with Jack Harry.

He flat out said he hadn't ruled out trading up from 11 to pick a quarterback, though.

FFS, take a look at KCs roster and tell me where we need immediate upgrades at this point.

We aren't Jacksonville, you baffoon.

milkman
04-11-2012, 07:32 PM
It's a shame nobody has put a muzzle on your dumbass yet.

There is NO CHANCE Pioli moves to 3 to pick Tannehill due to cost...unless it's dirt cheap to do so.

If we move up, it will be to 4 or later and we will do it by using a second or less this year.

Pioli has flat out said he would never trade "multiple firsts" for any player in his interview with Jack Harry.

He flat out said he hadn't ruled out trading up from 11 to pick a quarterback, though.

FFS, take a look at KCs roster and tell me where we need immediate upgrades at this point.

We aren't Jacksonville, you baffoon.

New word?

Cross between a baboon and buffoon?

Coogs
04-11-2012, 07:34 PM
I will say this for the LAST TIME. IF YOU TRADE UP TO GET THIS DUDE, YOU CAN FORGET DRAFTING ANY DEPTH FOR YOUR DEFENSE OR OFFENSE and you just bombed your draft.

Wait....


What?


They cancelled the other 4 or 5 rounds of the draft?

BossChief
04-11-2012, 07:34 PM
My phone autocorrected it to that. I always thought it was with a u, as well.

milkman
04-11-2012, 07:35 PM
My phone autocorrected it to that. I always thought it was with a u, as well.

Not a Smart phone, huh?

BossChief
04-11-2012, 07:40 PM
Apparently not.

BryanBusby
04-11-2012, 07:41 PM
I will say this for the LAST TIME. IF YOU TRADE UP TO GET THIS DUDE, YOU CAN FORGET DRAFTING ANY DEPTH FOR YOUR DEFENSE OR OFFENSE and you just bombed your draft.

Yeah dude that whopping 3rd round pick it'd cost to leapfrog the Dolphins would totally fuck their draft.

Frankie
04-11-2012, 11:15 PM
Cool story bro. I'm with you, depth is way more important than a starting QB.Mesmells sarcasm here.

jspchief
04-12-2012, 02:34 AM
The funny thing is, if the Chiefs are a good team, taking this risk and missing on it doesn't even set us back that much. So they lost out on a guard? Or we're stuck with Lewis/Belcher?

But people are so scared of the risk its absurd.

This fanbase deserves the last 40 years.

BryanBusby
04-12-2012, 02:51 AM
But but remember them good ol Marty days when we one all dem super bowls? Yeah I sure as hell don't remember them either.

Fans in KC still cling to MARTYBALL for idk what reason.

If we continue to go on this hurr lines and D course we're going to basically be the Steelers from a decade ago....you know the sames ones that finally said fuck it, took a shot on a first round QB instead of hoping Maddox would stop shitting his pants and went on to win 2 super bowls.

Nightfyre
04-12-2012, 06:51 AM
The funny thing is, if the Chiefs are a good team, taking this risk and missing on it doesn't even set us back that much. So they lost out on a guard? Or we're stuck with Lewis/Belcher?

But people are so scared of the risk its absurd.

This fanbase deserves the last 40 years.

srsly

Canofbier
04-12-2012, 06:57 AM
Dammit, you just can't hit the QB anymore, can;t even scare the QB unless aroughing the passer is thrown. Can't catch a runner from behind, lest your get a horsecollar, A reciever, is now considered defenless if one hand touches a ball.
Go ahead and draft Tannnehill at 11, trade up if you think it will put butts in the seats.

What's Hunt doing on this board?

qabbaan
04-12-2012, 07:04 AM
Irsay is full of shit. If Tannehill is a gem why don't the Colts trade the #1 pick?

Obviously, because Luck is better.

qabbaan
04-12-2012, 07:06 AM
The funny thing is, if the Chiefs are a good team, taking this risk and missing on it doesn't even set us back that much. So they lost out on a guard? Or we're stuck with Lewis/Belcher?

But people are so scared of the risk its absurd.

This fanbase deserves the last 40 years.

"But he's not a sure thing!"

OnTheWarpath58
04-12-2012, 07:07 AM
The funny thing is, if the Chiefs are a good team, taking this risk and missing on it doesn't even set us back that much. So they lost out on a guard? Or we're stuck with Lewis/Belcher?

But people are so scared of the risk its absurd.

This fanbase deserves the last 40 years.

I don't think people are scared of the risk of taking a QB, they're scared of the risk of taking THIS QB.

I also think the person making the decision plays a major role here too.

If you give me the decision between two more years of Cassel failing, Pioli getting fired and getting a new front office in here to draft/develop a QB, or letting the guy who thought Cassel was a good idea make the decision on our next QB - I'll take two more years of mediocrity.

What pisses me off more than anything, is that in past years, there's been no talk to trade up and grab an actual franchise QB - sure enough, there's chatter about moving up this year to grab a guy that is only a 1st round pick because the class is ridiculously weak, and there are a lot of desperate teams.

And in all honesty, we're probably wasting our time even talking about it. They've already found Cassel's "competition" in the form of Brady Quinn, and according to Iowa fans, we already have our franchise QB holding a clipboard on Sundays.

RUSH
04-12-2012, 08:10 AM
Thought this was a pretty interesting article about the compensation it would possibly take to trade up with the jags for Tannehill.

With the new rookie wage scale, both charts are now in question. While the 2nd round values and the values for later picks are probably still the same value as they've always been, the value of the first round picks is still very much a question mark.

The best anyone can do is use the trades from last year as a possible benchmark and the trade between the Rams and the Redskins as an indicator of what a top pick is now worth.

According to the trades made last year by the Falcons and Jaguars to move up, the value of top 10 picks is more closely represented by Johnson's mid-90's chart. So with that in mind, let's assume that the Jaguars have a pick worth about 1,500 of trade value.

This is my list of possible fair trades involving only 2012 selections with the teams behind the Jaguars in the first round:

Chiefs give 74 (3rd), 182 (6th)



Full article: http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2012/4/11/2941500/nfl-draft-2012-jaguars-trade-7th-pick#storyjump

Mr. Laz
04-12-2012, 09:17 AM
originally i didn't think there was much chance we would take Tannehill.

After watching how pissed some people would be if we did, i'm starting to change my mind. The footballs gawds should find it very amusing. After listening to people bitch endlessly about not selecting a 1st round, will now be bitching because we did.

LMAO

Mr. Laz
04-12-2012, 09:19 AM
I don't think people are scared of the risk of taking a QB, they're scared of the risk of taking THIS QB.
truuuuuuuuuuuue fan!!


This excuse was completely unacceptable when anyone has tried to use it in the past.

Coogs
04-12-2012, 09:47 AM
originally i didn't think there was much chance we would take Tannehill.

After watching how pissed some people would be if we did, i'm starting to change my mind. The footballs gawds should find it very amusing. After listening to people bitch endlessly about not selecting a 1st round, will now be bitching because we did.

LMAO

Pretty crazy isn't it?

aturnis
04-12-2012, 10:30 AM
truuuuuuuuuuuue fan!!


This excuse was completely unacceptable when anyone has tried to use it in the past.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested taking a 2nd round QB talent at #11 before. It's not the same argument when applied to a consensus first round talent.

Chocolate Hog
04-12-2012, 10:31 AM
I don't think anyone has ever suggested taking a 2nd round QB talent at #11 before. It's not the same argument when applied to a consensus first round talent.

2nd round talent? lolwut?

Epic Fail 007
04-12-2012, 10:46 AM
you're quoting someone from mid-season when he was not the 3rd ranked QB.

No! This is coming from me unlike alot of these idiots I speak my own thoughts.

BigMeatballDave
04-12-2012, 11:30 AM
I don't think people are scared of the risk of taking a QB, they're scared of the risk of taking THIS QB.

Fucking this!

I'm not fond of the idea of taking him at 11 but some are actually willing to trade up for him. Insane. That's not taking a chance. That's fucking dumb.

The positive is it would mean they are serious about replacing Cassel.

BigMeatballDave
04-12-2012, 11:31 AM
2nd round talent? lolwut?

Tannehill is not a legit 1st rd QB.

Pestilence
04-12-2012, 11:33 AM
There is a report that the Jags are willing to trade out of the #7 pick.

OnTheWarpath58
04-12-2012, 11:40 AM
From Mel Kiper's "Overrated/Underrated" list:

Ryan Tannehill, QB, Texas A&M
I love Tannehill's upside, and I think he has a great shot to be a good starter, but the market on him has gotten a little out of hand in some respects. Remember, if Matt Barkley, Landry Jones and perhaps Tyler Wilson were in this draft, we're talking about a likelier bet for late-first or second round for Tannehill. Again, he can be a good one, but a lot of it is projecting, because while his physical abilities are so impressive there is much work to be done.

In other words, he's being considered this early due to a weak class and desperation at the position - not because of his skills or potential.

You better get more than a "good starter" that early in the draft.

Epic Fail 007
04-12-2012, 11:45 AM
When it all comes down to it the entire draft is like playing poker. Get over it.

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 11:48 AM
From Mel Kiper's "Overrated/Underrated" list:



In other words, he's being considered this early due to a weak class and desperation at the position - not because of his skills or potential.

You better get more than a "good starter" that early in the draft.

He also has him listed as 18 on his big board. That's mid first...trying to have it both ways he is.

OnTheWarpath58
04-12-2012, 11:56 AM
He also has him listed as 18 on his big board. That's mid first...trying to have it both ways he is.

He's 18 on the big board because of the importance of the position, and the lack of talent in this class. Nothing more.

Kiper, McShay, all of us and every draftnik out there know that some team will make a ridiculous Christian Ponder-like 2nd round talent/Top 10 selection decision on draft day.

He's not going to fight it, but his words speak volumes.

Hell, he's far from the only guy out there who think Tannehill's stock is ridiculously high. There are people who think a goddamn 30 year old should go ahead of him.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Detoxing
04-12-2012, 11:58 AM
****ing this!

I'm not fond of the idea of taking him at 11 but some are actually willing to trade up for him. Insane. That's not taking a chance. That's ****ing dumb.

The positive is it would mean they are serious about replacing Cassel.

Insane. Right. Gotcha.

Instead the Chiefs should just stop looking for a QB for the next 2-3 years, let the roster rot so we can find ourselves in the top 5 again 2-3 (or more) years from now, and we MIGHT have a shot at a more polished prospect, who will still likely need 2-3 years of development, plus a rebuilding effort around him (again) That would put us at, what, 6 years behind?

What was insane now?

And we're talking about moving up, what, 4 spots at the cost of a 3rd rounder? Yeah, really breaking the bank there.



Look, i'm not anymore sold on Tannehill than the next guy, but the Chiefs NEED a new QB, and they have to start somewhere.

Putting it off every year waiting for that perfect prospect to come along is how we got here in the first place.

Take the damn chance on the kid. If he doesn't work out, we'll (possibly) be in a position to do it again 2-3 years from now.

Not sure when CP turned into a bunch of chickenshits, but listening to this place gripe about not taking a QB early for the past 7 years, and then when a true possibility finally presents itself, this place wants to go all chicken little on the guy....it's driving me insane.

Bunch of hypocrites.

Papi
04-12-2012, 12:50 PM
Your argument moves me. And I like your sig. So yeah, what you said.

the Talking Can
04-12-2012, 12:52 PM
When it all comes down to it the entire draft is like playing poker. Get over it.

why the fuck haven't you killed yourself yet?

SNR
04-12-2012, 02:02 PM
I don't think people are scared of the risk of taking a QB, they're scared of the risk of taking THIS QB.

I also think the person making the decision plays a major role here too.

If you give me the decision between two more years of Cassel failing, Pioli getting fired and getting a new front office in here to draft/develop a QB, or letting the guy who thought Cassel was a good idea make the decision on our next QB - I'll take two more years of mediocrity.

What pisses me off more than anything, is that in past years, there's been no talk to trade up and grab an actual franchise QB - sure enough, there's chatter about moving up this year to grab a guy that is only a 1st round pick because the class is ridiculously weak, and there are a lot of desperate teams.

And in all honesty, we're probably wasting our time even talking about it. They've already found Cassel's "competition" in the form of Brady Quinn, and according to Iowa fans, we already have our franchise QB holding a clipboard on Sundays.
1. Pioli's not getting fired in two years. This is a Hunt we're talking about. Actions speak louder than words, and from what we've been given so far, the son is just as loyal to his GMs as the father in spite of words to the contrary.

2. "I don't think people are scared of the risk of taking a QB, they're scared of the risk of taking THIS QB." Look, I wanted to draft Sanchez. I wanted to draft Clausen at 5 if Eric Berry was already taken. I was furious that we didn't take Clausen in the 2nd. And I've always regretted the Matt Cassel trade. And I really don't see why we shouldn't pull the trigger on Tannehill if he falls to 11. I'm not a fan of trading up for him, but if he's there at 11, we've got the QB depth to keep him on the bench for at least a year. He's young and Zorn/Daboll at least have a past of making decent products out of shit QBs. Lastly, being afraid of THIS QB isn't an excuse. It's a risky pick. But for fuck's sake, that's all we've been doing the past few decades is begging this team to take risks on a QB instead of taking risks on something retarded like a DT or a college G playing LT in the NFL. And need I remind us all that this team is in a position where they can AFFORD this risk. DeCastro, Kuechly, or Brockers have an almost 0% chance of being the players that affect our shot at the Super Bowl. Tannehill is that player.

Roll the dice for fucking once.

Setsuna
04-12-2012, 02:13 PM
Wait....


What?


They cancelled the other 4 or 5 rounds of the draft?

Oh I forgot you find quality depth at the 4th, 5th and beyond rounds. My bad.

Setsuna
04-12-2012, 02:16 PM
Yeah dude that whopping 3rd round pick it'd cost to leapfrog the Dolphins would totally **** their draft.

What!? You'd have to give up your 2nd and 3rd and then next years first and second and probably the next years 1st and second. So that leaves you 4-7. Yep quality depth right there bro. Shut up you dumb degenerate.

-King-
04-12-2012, 02:20 PM
Oh I forgot you find quality depth at the 4th, 5th and beyond rounds. My bad.

You dont?

BryanBusby
04-12-2012, 02:21 PM
What!? You'd have to give up your 2nd and 3rd and then next years first and second and probably the next years 1st and second. So that leaves you 4-7. Yep quality depth right there bro. Shut up you dumb degenerate.

Uh no, it's going to cost much less than that to go from 11 to 7. Go fuck yourself with a broomstick sat on fire, dumbass.

Frosty
04-12-2012, 02:21 PM
You dont?

He's a Jaguars fan, so I can see how he would think that.

Setsuna
04-12-2012, 02:23 PM
You dont?

Well obviously you can but for what you guys need those positions aren't very deep and the lower rounds you go, the percentage to hit on these guys diminishes dramatically. I want you guys to own in the draft. I'm not saying don't take Tan at current position, I'm saying don't trade up, not even to the Jags. You lose too much.

-King-
04-12-2012, 02:23 PM
What!? You'd have to give up your 2nd and 3rd and then next years first and second and probably the next years 1st and second. So that leaves you 4-7. Yep quality depth right there bro. Shut up you dumb degenerate.

What in blue fucks are you talking about?

Detoxing
04-12-2012, 02:23 PM
What!? You'd have to give up your 2nd and 3rd and then next years first and second and probably the next years 1st and second. So that leaves you 4-7. Yep quality depth right there bro. Shut up you dumb degenerate.

Wait...I thought this was sarcasm. Are you serious?

Coogs
04-12-2012, 02:24 PM
What!? You'd have to give up your 2nd and 3rd and then next years first and second and probably the next years 1st and second. So that leaves you 4-7. Yep quality depth right there bro. Shut up you dumb degenerate.

To swap up a few spots? Two 1sts, three 2nds, and a 3rd! GD, I'm glad you are not in charge!

-King-
04-12-2012, 02:24 PM
Well obviously you can but for what you guys need those positions aren't very deep and the lowers rounds you go, the percentage to hit on these guys diminishes dramatically. I want you guys to own in the draft. I'm not saying don't take Tan at current position, I'm saying don't trade up, not even to the Jags. You lose too much.

So you can only get quality players in the first 3 rounds?


You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. 3-7 rounds are built for drafting for depth. 1st and 2nd are for starters.

BryanBusby
04-12-2012, 02:25 PM
Setsuna is a literal fucking retard.

BigMeatballDave
04-12-2012, 02:26 PM
originally i didn't think there was much chance we would take Tannehill.

After watching how pissed some people would be if we did, i'm starting to change my mind. The footballs gawds should find it very amusing. After listening to people bitch endlessly about not selecting a 1st round, will now be bitching because we did.

LMAO

You truely are a fucking moron.

BigMeatballDave
04-12-2012, 02:27 PM
Pretty crazy isn't it?

:facepalm:

Setsuna
04-12-2012, 02:28 PM
I'm talking about to the 3rd spot.

BryanBusby
04-12-2012, 02:30 PM
Unless they are completely fucking certain the Browns will take him at 4, and there's been no indication they would, why would they trade up to 3?

BigMeatballDave
04-12-2012, 02:31 PM
Insane. Right. Gotcha.

Instead the Chiefs should just stop looking for a QB for the next 2-3 years, let the roster rot so we can find ourselves in the top 5 again 2-3 (or more) years from now, and we MIGHT have a shot at a more polished prospect, who will still likely need 2-3 years of development, plus a rebuilding effort around him (again) That would put us at, what, 6 years behind?

What was insane now?

And we're talking about moving up, what, 4 spots at the cost of a 3rd rounder? Yeah, really breaking the bank there.



Look, i'm not anymore sold on Tannehill than the next guy, but the Chiefs NEED a new QB, and they have to start somewhere.

Putting it off every year waiting for that perfect prospect to come along is how we got here in the first place.

Take the damn chance on the kid. If he doesn't work out, we'll (possibly) be in a position to do it again 2-3 years from now.

Not sure when CP turned into a bunch of chickenshits, but listening to this place gripe about not taking a QB early for the past 7 years, and then when a true possibility finally presents itself, this place wants to go all chicken little on the guy....it's driving me insane.

Bunch of hypocrites....and even more :facepalm:

Rausch
04-12-2012, 02:31 PM
I completely understand wanting to take the risk.

I get the year after year after year after year of suck arse QB's.

What I don't get is ONCE AGIAN being the team suckered into the combine workouts and team-tryout days that elevate a guy (at any position) from round 3 to round 1.

I'll go on record now: I DON'T THINK ANY 1ST ROUND QB WILL BE A PROBOWLER.

PERIOD.

BigMeatballDave
04-12-2012, 02:37 PM
Uh no, it's going to cost much less than that to go from 11 to 7. Go fuck yourself with a broomstick sat on fire, dumbass.

Using more than #11 to get him is too much.

Detoxing
04-12-2012, 02:42 PM
Using more than #11 to get him is too much.

And your answer to the QB problem is what? Try again next year after we go 7-9 again?

Setsuna
04-12-2012, 02:43 PM
Using more than #11 to get him is too much.

Even when I think I'm making a reasonable statement, they flame me. It seems like you think the same as me about it being too much. Wonder if they'll call you names and flame you.

qabbaan
04-12-2012, 02:43 PM
No doubt the market is crazy right now for QBs. It's like the market for gold, so inflated by other factors that you aren't seeing a true measure of value but rather the outcome of QB speculation.

That being said, we are QB poor. You have zero, zero chance in the league of winning a title when you are QB poor.

Tannehill is not a top third of the first round kind of talent but eventually you have to take a risk and I am ok with it if we do - Simply because we can't win unless we buy a ticket, so to speak.

I don't think making a depth pick or picking another 5 tech at #11 is any less crazy than taking a shot at a real QB

Bowser
04-12-2012, 02:46 PM
And your answer to the QB problem is what? Try again next year after we go 7-9 again?

Here is the early list for 2013....


1
Matt Barkley
Quarterback
Southern California

6'3
227

4.70

PSH Grade: 88.00
Fan Grade: -




2
Aaron Murray
Quarterback
Georgia

6'1
209

4.70

PSH Grade: 83.00
Fan Grade: -




3
Tyler Wilson
Quarterback
Arkansas

6'3
215

4.80

PSH Grade: 82.00
Fan Grade: -




4
Landry Jones
Quarterback
Oklahoma

6'4
215

-

PSH Grade: 71.00
Fan Grade: -




5
Jeff Tuel
Quarterback
Washington State

6'3
220

4.75

PSH Grade: 48.00
Fan Grade: -




-
Jake Heaps
Quarterback
BYU

6'2
194

5.00

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
Nathan Scheelhaase
Quarterback
Illinois

6'3
195

4.55

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
James Vandenberg
Quarterback
Iowa

6'3
212

5.00

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
Tyler Bray
Quarterback
Tennessee

6'5
210

5.15

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
Stephen Morris
Quarterback
Miami

6'2
210

-

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
Geno Smith
Quarterback
West Virginia

6'3
210

4.80

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
Tate Forcier
Quarterback
Michigan

6'1
187

-

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
E.J. Manuel
Quarterback
Florida State

6'4
234

4.60

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
Roy Roundtree
Quarterback
Michigan

6'0
176

-

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
Kyle Parker
Quarterback
Clemson

6'0
205

-

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
Austyn Carta-Samuels
Quarterback
Wyoming

6'2
210

-

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
Tom Savage
Quarterback
Rutgers

6'5
230

4.80

PSH Grade: -
Fan Grade: -




-
Keith Price
Quarterback
Washington

6'1
195

Detoxing
04-12-2012, 02:46 PM
Even when I think I'm making a reasonable statement, they flame me. It seems like you think the same as me about it being too much. Wonder if they'll call you names and flame you.

You two are making two completely different points.

Rausch
04-12-2012, 02:47 PM
And your answer to the QB problem is what? Try again next year after we go 7-9 again?

You probably will.

Not much to risk/lose here...

Detoxing
04-12-2012, 02:49 PM
Here is the early list for 2013....



That's great and all, but the list essentially stops at Landry Jones. And when we're picking 15-20 after another 7-9/8-8 season, the only one of the top QB's will be Jones.

And we'll be in the same exact position again, just a year later.

BigMeatballDave
04-12-2012, 02:54 PM
And your answer to the QB problem is what? Try again next year after we go 7-9 again?

Live with what we have.

If he's there at 11, take him. He is not worth more than #11.

This is a reach. He is 2nd rd talent.

qabbaan
04-12-2012, 02:58 PM
I am sick of this "there are better QBs next year" nonsense. This team is not going to go 2-14. Next year we will have an older team and a worse draft pick.

Setsuna
04-12-2012, 02:59 PM
You two are making two completely different points.

How? I said don't take him earlier than 11, but that's fine to take him at 11. Isn't that what it boils down to? Reasoning or no reasoning for it. I personally don't think he's a 1st round QB but the threat of him not being there past the 1st is what's making him rise so high.