PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Ryan Tannehill


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

BossChief
04-12-2012, 03:05 PM
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.

2 things:

1) 2010 called and they want their post back. How many times do people have to say it before some of you understand it?

THE NEW CBA COUPLED WITH THE RULES SLANTED TOWARDS THE PASSING GAME MAKES TAKING GUYS LIKE TANNEHILL AND PONDER TYPE PROSPECTS HIGH IN THE DRAFT A NORMAL OCCURANCE...THEY AREN'T A "REACH" ANYMORE.

2) why is it that every other year, you guys clown Kiper for being a talking head fool...but now that you agree with him his words are to be taken as gospel?

Give me a break.

Shit, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see Brock Osweiler as a guy that sneaks into the first round, nowadays.

It's as simple as this:

If you have a ceiling of a franchise quarterback, you are almost always gonna be a first rounder.

Detoxing
04-12-2012, 03:05 PM
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.


You're going to be in that same exact position again next year. At some point, you have to pull the trigger, so why prolong it?

With the new CBA, safe QB prospects aren't going to fall in your lap anymore. Too many teams know the importance of one, and because there is much less financial risk, more teams are willing to pull the trigger on then early.

keg in kc
04-12-2012, 03:06 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.And because of the likely depth of the position next year, the odds are pretty good that there will be better prospects than Tannehill available not only in the 20s but in the 2nd round. Much like in the 2011 draft. That's basically where the gamble is, deciding how the value of Tannehill at 11 (or higher) compares to the value of the quarterbacks likely to be available next year. Basically is it worth selling the farm now? Is it worth waiting until next year and the risk of missing out entirely?

Detoxing
04-12-2012, 03:10 PM
And because of the likely depth of the position next year, the odds are pretty good that there will be better prospects than Tannehill available not only in the 20s but in the 2nd round. Much like in the 2011 draft. That's basically where the gamble is, deciding how the value of Tannehill at 11 (or higher) compares to the value of the quarterbacks likely to be available next year. Basically is it worth selling the farm now? Is it worth waiting until next year and the risk of missing out entirely?

Wrong.

The 2011 Draft class that you mentioned is a perfect example of that. More QB's in a class just means more QB's going in the top 15.

The 2011 Draft class taught us all we need to know about what the new CBA did to incoming QB prospects.

These guys aren't going to fall into your lap anymore. If you want a potential Franchise QB and you're not in the top 15, you're going to have to move up to grab one.

Bowser
04-12-2012, 03:15 PM
So for those wanting us to take Tannehill, how mad would you be if we don't trade up for him, but took Kirk Cousins in the second?

Bowser
04-12-2012, 03:16 PM
These guys aren't going to fall into your lap anymore. If you want a potential Franchise QB and you're not in the top 15, you're going to have to move up to grab one.

That's the issue for me. I don't think Tannehill is a "franchise" kind of player. I'm no expert or guru, it's just how I feel. I don't feel like this kid is worth what we would have to pay to move up and grab him.

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 03:19 PM
So for those wanting us to take Tannehill, how mad would you be if we don't trade up for him, but took Kirk Cousins in the second?

Tannehill people are QB people. If Cousins is better then sweet. If not we screwed the pooch.

BigMeatballDave
04-12-2012, 03:20 PM
You're going to be in that same exact position again next year. At some point, you have to pull the trigger, so why prolong it?

With the new CBA, safe QB prospects aren't going to fall in your lap anymore. Too many teams know the importance of one, and because there is much less financial risk, more teams are willing to pull the trigger on then early.

What we have here is failure to communicate.

Ultimately, we all want a franchise QB.

In a better draft class of QBs, Tannehill is a 3rd rd prospect.

I'd rather take my chances with Stanzi.

Detoxing
04-12-2012, 03:20 PM
So for those wanting us to take Tannehill, how mad would you be if we don't trade up for him, but took Kirk Cousins in the second?

I don't care enough about Tannehill to be mad if he wasn't selected. I'm on the fence about him. But if the Chiefs feel that he's the guy and wanna move up to get him @ 7, i'd support the move.

keg in kc
04-12-2012, 03:21 PM
Wrong.

The 2011 Draft class that you mentioned is a perfect example of that. More QB's in a class just means more QB's going in the top 15. It proves the point I was making: Tannehill last year (if he was this year's version of himself traveled a year back in time...) would have been the 5th or 6th quarterback off the board, at best (I expect somewhere between Dalton/Kaepernick in the early 2nd and Mallett in the 3rd), and ditto for next year. His value is grossly inflated by the fact that this draft is devoid of QBs after Luck and RG3. So the question is, again, whether you draft him this year at 11 (or higher), or wait until next year and take a chance at acquiring (or failing to acquire) an equivalent talent later in that draft.

BryanBusby
04-12-2012, 03:24 PM
What we have here is failure to communicate.

Ultimately, we all want a franchise QB.

In a better draft class of QBs, Tannehill is a 3rd rd prospect.

I'd rather take my chances with Stanzi.

lolwut

So for those wanting us to take Tannehill, how mad would you be if we don't trade up for him, but took Kirk Cousins in the second?
Would be rather annoyed. He was just average at Michigan State and I don't think there's much, if any, untapped potential in him.

BigMeatballDave
04-12-2012, 03:27 PM
lolwut

LOLWUT

keg in kc
04-12-2012, 03:29 PM
We already have Cousins, it just says Stanzi on his jersey.

Epic Fail 007
04-12-2012, 03:33 PM
@dave your stupid/ Tannehill is better than stanzi anyday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rggN5LU2AT0

whoman69
04-12-2012, 03:34 PM
You're going to be in that same exact position again next year. At some point, you have to pull the trigger, so why prolong it?

With the new CBA, safe QB prospects aren't going to fall in your lap anymore. Too many teams know the importance of one, and because there is much less financial risk, more teams are willing to pull the trigger on then early.

That doesn't make it a better decision, just a rushed one. Its still a reach since you've made a decision to drop your standards on what is considered a first round pick. You can't say its a painless pick. You've passed on adding other parts that can add to your team. You're also wasting resources trying to get these guys up to speed and they may never get there. The same teams are going to be drafting the wrong QBs while the smarter teams will take their shots on QBs they believe to be worth the pick. Brody Croyle would be a first round pick under your new rules.

BigMeatballDave
04-12-2012, 03:36 PM
@dave your stupid
Thanks. I enjoy irony. :)

Epic Fail 007
04-12-2012, 03:45 PM
Using more than #11 to get him is too much.

Well goddammit Im sick of people like you. Its like poker if you really want it sometimes you need to take the chance and go all in regardless of anything. Stop being a conservative fuck head and stfu! Im guessing you want carl back so we can draft a trezzle jenkins in the 1st every damn year fuck you pussy.

SNR
04-12-2012, 04:02 PM
So for those wanting us to take Tannehill, how mad would you be if we don't trade up for him, but took Kirk Cousins in the second?No. Fucking hell no. Stanzi > Cousins.

Again, unless Cassel or Quinn gets cut, taking a QB not named Luck, RGIII, or Tannehill is a stupid idea. If we draft a QB, we have to draft a QB to be the franchise, not to just wait and see if he can beat out Quinn or Stanzi in two years. The guy we draft has to affect our plans long-term, and we have to prepare the way for him to start some games next year. We can't just wait for injury or a convenient time to give him the reins.

I see Tannehill as that kind of QB capable of taking over. All other QBs in this class can go fuck themselves.

Detoxing
04-12-2012, 04:06 PM
No. ****ing hell no. Stanzi > Cousins.

Again, unless Cassel or Quinn gets cut, taking a QB not named Luck, RGIII, or Tannehill is a stupid idea. If we draft a QB, we have to draft a QB to be the franchise, not to just wait and see if he can beat out Quinn or Stanzi in two years. The guy we draft has to affect our plans long-term, and we have to prepare the way for him to start some games next year. We can't just wait for injury or a convenient time to give him the reins.

I see Tannehill as that kind of QB capable of taking over. All other QBs in this class can go **** themselves.

This.

Frosty
04-12-2012, 04:25 PM
So for those wanting us to take Tannehill, how mad would you be if we don't trade up for him, but took Kirk Cousins in the second?

I wouldn't mind Cousins. I think he has a Trent Green-like ceiling.

I would be fine with Tannehill, Cousins, Osweiller, Foles and maybe Lindley out of this draft.

As for waiting until next year, I guess I am not that impressed with next year's class. I don't like Barkley or Jones and don't think the others will make to mid to late first round. For as weak as this class is supposed to be, we would be picking from essentially the same type of players next season (potential with a lot of questions). Might as well start the development as soon as possible.

keg in kc
04-12-2012, 04:27 PM
I see Tannehill as that kind of QB capable of taking over. All other QBs in this class can go **** themselves.And some of us don't see him as that kind of QB at all. If we did, there wouldn't be any question about it. I see him as a project player. And I think if you want to take a gamble on a guy like that, you don't do it in the top 10. It's Mark Sanchez all over again. And we already have a guy at quarterback that we have to gameplan around and carry offensively to justify his presence on the field. I really don't want another one.

If they take Tannehill, first, hopefully, it's not after moving up, and then hopefully my gut's wrong, and it turns out that he's not just a project. But it's something I would and will worry about.

SNR
04-12-2012, 04:51 PM
And some of us don't see him as that kind of QB at all. If we did, there wouldn't be any question about it. I see him as a project player. And I think if you want to take a gamble on a guy like that, you don't do it in the top 10. It's Mark Sanchez all over again. And we already have a guy at quarterback that we have to gameplan around and carry offensively to justify his presence on the field. I really don't want another one.

If they take Tannehill, first, hopefully, it's not after moving up, and then hopefully my gut's wrong, and it turns out that he's not just a project. But it's something I would and will worry about.The idea isn't that you'd draft Tannehill like you would Tebow and then create a friendly offense for him to operate in. You draft Tannehill, work him through practice and the playbook in the first year and give him technique restructuring where necessary (apart from his footwork, there's really not all that much, actually).

The biggest issue with him is decision making and testing his instincts. That's something the coaches know far more about than any of us. They've had chances to get to know Tannehill through interviews and private workouts.

If they deem he's mentally tough, smart, coachable, and technically polished, then they need to pull the trigger. If they don't, then they shouldn't.

All we have right now as fans are opinions of his game tape. That's really not that much. That being said, if we do draft Tannehill at 11, I really can't imagine a scenario where I would be pissed off about the pick. The Chiefs just drafted a fucking QB in the first round and that means I'm pissed? What? That makes no sense at all.

Fear of the prospect will ALWAYS prevent a team from drafting a QB. Many people hated Matt Ryan in 2008, which is absolutely fucking absurd considering we had Huard, Brokie, and Thigpen on the roster. They said he threw interceptions in college. People wised up about Stafford for some reason even though his college game tape was filled with just as many stupid decisions and easy interceptions. And then everybody had their periods about how much Sanchez sucks.

Tannehill's about as good as it gets until the Chiefs go through another rebuild, folks. QBs are not going to fall to us drafting 15 and later most years, and this "magical" QB class everybody is looking for hasn't happened. There hasn't fucking been one since 2004.

Either get on the Tannehill train or STFU and enjoy the late round QB fishing game. Is Stanzi the guy? How about Osweiler? Oooh Chandler Harnish has some game!

DeezNutz
04-12-2012, 04:52 PM
Cousins is close to being as underrated on this board as Tannehill is overrated.

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 04:54 PM
If we will be in position to take a certain QB they are never good enough. The only QB's that are CP approved are going to be drafted higher than we can attain. 100% of the time.

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 04:55 PM
Cousins is close to being as underrated on this board as Tannehill is overrated.

Not just here, every single draft site, fan forum, talking head on tv and NFL front offices as well. Strange.

SNR
04-12-2012, 04:56 PM
My post is pretty long. Let me summarize it:

1. The Chiefs for the next several years are going to find themselves drafting in the second half of the first round.

2. QBs are less likely to fall that far.

3. QB classes themselves have been getting drier and drier over the years. There hasn't been a really magical class of QBs to come out since 2004, and we really shouldn't anticipate that changing any time soon.

4. Trading up will cost the team far out the ass. People are reticent about that as well apparently because "we need all of those picks"

5. Very likely Tannehill is the best we're going to see at realistically drafting a QB for a long time. That means either you get excited about taking him at 11 if that happens, or you sit down and enjoy Pioli's quest for finding a QB diamond in the rough.

SNR
04-12-2012, 04:57 PM
Cousins is close to being as underrated on this board as Tannehill is overrated.So Stanzi = garbage, but Cousins = underrated potential.

D'okay. :spock:

DeezNutz
04-12-2012, 04:57 PM
Not just here, every single draft site, fan forum, talking head on tv and NFL front offices as well. Strange.

Yeah, OK. Overstatement is overstatement.

Not too excited one way or the other about this upcoming draft. There isn't a knockout prospect, and we don't have dire needs. So if the organization drafts Tannehill or even wants to go balls deep this draft to accomplish it, cool.

Good time to take a risk, I suppose. Make no mistakes, this player is one hell of a risk, more so than the average pick.

DeezNutz
04-12-2012, 04:58 PM
So Stanzi = garbage, but Cousins = underrated potential.

D'okay. :spock:

No. Don't be so reductive. Not exactly your style.

O.city
04-12-2012, 05:00 PM
Can't remember where I read it, but I remember it being talked about on here.


Someone who attended Tannehills pro day, said something along the lines of "He made every throw with accuracy and velocity" or something like that. I've read it a couple times.


I don't think with the spread he was really asked to showcase all he has.


All said, I won't be upset if we grab him. I also won't be upset if we trade back, grab Mercilus and get an extra second rounder.

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 05:01 PM
Yeah, OK. Overstatement is overstatement.

Not too excited one way or the other about this upcoming draft. There isn't a knockout prospect, and we don't have dire needs. So if the organization drafts Tannehill or even wants to go balls deep this draft to accomplish it, cool.

Good time to take a risk, I suppose. Make no mistakes, this player is one hell of a risk, more so than the average pick.

Tannehill is a huge risk. He is putting all your chips on the table. But that is a risk that KC has to make at some point if they're ever going to win anything. If they think he has franchise potential they have to take him. With our current roster the chances of us having a pick high enough in the near future to get a great QB prospect are just not good.

SNR
04-12-2012, 05:01 PM
No. Don't be so reductive. Not exactly your style.Thanks. I think?

DeezNutz
04-12-2012, 05:03 PM
Tannehill is a huge risk. He is putting all your chips on the table. But that is a risk that KC has to make at some point if they're ever going to win anything. If they think he has franchise potential they have to take him. With our current roster the chances of us having a pick high enough in the near future to get a great QB prospect are just not good.

Don't underestimate Cassel's potential.

We'll be in position to draft a QB with Tannehill's resume again in the near future. Hell we've had that chance in '08, '09, and '11. He might end up being special, but there's nothing about his resume that makes him that now.

O.city
04-12-2012, 05:08 PM
I would say that with our roster the way it is, we are gonna have to be picking qbs who aren't the top guys in each class.


It's gonna be the 3rd or 4th guy, so if they think Tannehill is the guy fine.


I won't really be pissed if the think he's the guy, draft him, and he doesn't turn out. I guess I'll be pissed but not really at the Front office. They took a chance, it didn't work out. Move on to the next guy.

Bewbies
04-12-2012, 05:13 PM
Don't underestimate Cassel's potential.

We'll be in position to draft a QB with Tannehill's resume again in the near future. Hell we've had that chance in '08, '09, and '11. He might end up being special, but there's nothing about his resume that makes him that now.

Everything went wrong this year and we still won 7 games...

Frankie
04-12-2012, 05:54 PM
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
So, except for Barkley and maybe Wilson should we get a hard on about this list?

whoman69
04-12-2012, 06:18 PM
Don't underestimate Cassel's potential.

We'll be in position to draft a QB with Tannehill's resume again in the near future. Hell we've had that chance in '08, '09, and '11. He might end up being special, but there's nothing about his resume that makes him that now.

You almost lost me with your first sentence.

-King-
04-12-2012, 06:21 PM
Can't remember where I read it, but I remember it being talked about on here.


Someone who attended Tannehills pro day, said something along the lines of "He made every throw with accuracy and velocity" or something like that. I've read it a couple times.


I don't think with the spread he was really asked to showcase all he has.


All said, I won't be upset if we grab him. I also won't be upset if we trade back, grab Mercilus and get an extra second rounder.

Good pro days mean nothing for the most part. There aren't a lot of QBs who DON'T have a good pro day.

BigMeatballDave
04-12-2012, 06:24 PM
Well goddammit Im sick of people like you. Its like poker if you really want it sometimes you need to take the chance and go all in regardless of anything. Stop being a conservative fuck head and stfu! Im guessing you want carl back so we can draft a trezzle jenkins in the 1st every damn year fuck you pussy.

LOLWUT

Discuss Thrower
04-12-2012, 06:27 PM
So, except for Barkley and maybe Wilson should we get a hard on about this list?

Trade for as many first rounders next year as possible, trade up for Barkley assuming he's healthy.

Setsuna
04-12-2012, 06:33 PM
So, except for Barkley and maybe Wilson should we get a hard on about this list?

Bray. I was down on SNR about him, but now that I think about it, Bray has been good despite how bad his team around him is, Barkley and Wilson have had really good players and experienced OCs with them. I think Bray will be top brass by season's end though how bad his team is might make people overlook him. And I will slit my wrists now for praising a UT player still at UT.

SNR
04-12-2012, 06:36 PM
So, except for Barkley and maybe Wilson should we get a hard on about this list?
The only for-certains coming out next year that we should remotely give a shit about at this point are Barkley, Wilson, and (maybe) Jones.

If Tyler Bray declares, I imagine he'll leapfrog all of them as the #1 QB off the board. Aaron Murray could do the same thing.

The rest of those guys are going to have to do something impressive like RGIII did this past season to get on the radar as a 1st rounder.

I'm not a huge fan of Barkley at all. If we traded up to get this turd I might be kind of pissed about that, actually. I'd rather stay wherever it is we're drafting and take the 3rd or 4th guy, whether that's Wilson or (gag) Jones.

SNR
04-12-2012, 06:39 PM
Bray. I was down on SNR about him, but now that I think about it, Bray has been good despite how bad his team around him is, Barkley and Wilson have had really good players and experienced OCs with them. I think Bray will be top brass by season's end though how bad his team is might make people overlook him. And I will slit my wrists now for praising a UT player still at UT.We've seen QBs fuck up their draft stock before (Jake Locker, anyone?) but I really believe based on what I've seen that with an injury-free year and some leadership improvements that Bray will be the guy to watch next year. Right now draft boards have called him too quiet in the locker room which is slightly concerning.

We'll see, though. He has an entire year to interview well and look impressive on TV.

SNR
04-12-2012, 06:49 PM
This crap Cincinnati defense didn't put much pressure on Bray, so the video is not the greatest. But there are some real great throws being put out there. He's got fantastic size, footwork, delivery, and a rocket arm. Pretty good start. He's just gotta put everything together and look good one more year.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DOaaT9zvYb8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

keg in kc
04-12-2012, 07:05 PM
I'm going to probably go against the grain and add Geno Smith to that list. I think he's somebody that's either overlooked or undersold because he's at West Virginia/in the Big Least. It'll be interesting watching him in the Big 12. He has prototypical size (6'3, 215), has a strong, accurate arm and can make any throw short of long, he makes good decisions, and he'll be a three year starter by the time the draft rolls around. A little more consistency (which would I think be helped by better line play) and he could have a monstrous year, which is saying something for a guy who had over 4300 yards passing, and 31 TD (stats were skewed a bit by the bowl game, 400 yards/6 TD...).

That's part of the reason I don't think it's a bad idea to consider next year in the equation. Things can and probably will change in the next 12 months, but it looks like a tremendous class. There may not be a Luck in the bunch, but there's a whole lot of guys who look to be capable of playing themselves into the first round.

BossChief
04-12-2012, 09:31 PM
If we are gonna have a shot at one of the franchise guys next year, its gonna take a rg3 type package of picks to move up to get one and Pioli has flat out said he would never trade "multiple first round picks" to move up in the draft.

It's a fucking pipe dream to even think about.

You either use a second or third this year to move up, or you are are sitting there next year HOPING FOR LANDRY FUCKING JONES.

Just the thought of that pos Cassel clone being drafted with a first round pick of ours makes me want to punt a kitten.

rico
04-12-2012, 10:14 PM
This crap Cincinnati defense didn't put much pressure on Bray, so the video is not the greatest. But there are some real great throws being put out there. He's got fantastic size, footwork, delivery, and a rocket arm. Pretty good start. He's just gotta put everything together and look good one more year.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DOaaT9zvYb8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nice.....

RUSH
04-13-2012, 08:40 AM
SI_PeterKing: Hmmmm. Ryan Tannehill had private workout with Chiefs, then visited KC. He'll be in Cleve Sun-Mon, then Buff. Plot thickens.

http://twitter.com/SI_PeterKing/status/190795928280633345

Interesting...

Bewbies
04-13-2012, 08:44 AM
Do not want. How is Albert gonna know the snap count if he doesn't have an elite communicator like DeCastro telling him what to do?

BossChief
04-13-2012, 09:05 AM
SI_PeterKing: Hmmmm. Ryan Tannehill had private workout with Chiefs, then visited KC. He'll be in Cleve Sun-Mon, then Buff. Plot thickens.

http://twitter.com/SI_PeterKing/status/190795928280633345

Interesting...

Always remember that Peter King is Piolis puppet.

Seems a lot like a set up for "well, we tried"

Coogs
04-13-2012, 09:06 AM
SI_PeterKing: Hmmmm. Ryan Tannehill had private workout with Chiefs, then visited KC. He'll be in Cleve Sun-Mon, then Buff. Plot thickens.

http://twitter.com/SI_PeterKing/status/190795928280633345

Interesting...

I'm not really sure where I stand on Tannehill. But I do know this...

Matt Cassel is 18-22 in his 40 career starts with the Chiefs. He is 14-6 in games where we ran the ball more than we threw it. He is 1-0 in games where rushes and passes were equal. However, in a NFL that is classified as a passing first league, he is 3-16 when we put the ball in the air more than we run it.

-King-
04-13-2012, 09:07 AM
Always remember that Peter King is Piolis puppet.

Seems a lot like a set up for "well, we tried"

What ROFL ?

BossChief
04-13-2012, 09:12 AM
I'm not really sure where I stand on Tannehill. But I do know this...

Matt Cassel is 18-22 in his 40 career starts with the Chiefs. He is 14-6 in games where we ran the ball more than we threw it. He is 1-0 in games where rushes and passes were equal. However, in a NFL that is classified as a passing first league, he is 3-16 when we put the ball in the air more than we run it.WOW

I knew it was bad, but wow.

Just wow.

BossChief
04-13-2012, 09:15 AM
What ROFL ?

Matt Cassel is a top 5 MVP candidate.

Pestilence
04-13-2012, 09:19 AM
The only way that I see us even having a shot at a QB next year is if we trade down as far as we can in this years draft. And I mean basically trade completely out of the 1st round.

ChiefRocka
04-13-2012, 09:19 AM
Sacked Castle...with a Ray-Ray armbar.


http://media.columbiatribune.com/img/photos/2011/01/10/mo_B01_sack_0110_t900x900.jpg?b912964d3d99218fae5b265f3a13640b95f86346

Coogs
04-13-2012, 09:21 AM
WOW

I knew it was bad, but wow.

Just wow.

That was my reaction as well. That's just not good. Obviously, some of those games we were behind and had to throw, but still... 3-16! :shake:

Pestilence
04-13-2012, 09:26 AM
I'm not really sure where I stand on Tannehill. But I do know this...

Matt Cassel is 18-22 in his 40 career starts with the Chiefs. He is 14-6 in games where we ran the ball more than we threw it. He is 1-0 in games where rushes and passes were equal. However, in a NFL that is classified as a passing first league, he is 3-16 when we put the ball in the air more than we run it.

Who were the three teams that he beat?

Coogs
04-13-2012, 09:26 AM
The only way that I see us even having a shot at a QB next year is if we trade down as far as we can in this years draft. And I mean basically trade completely out of the 1st round.

You know, last year I was promoting this very thing to have 2 chips in the Luck derby. When the Chifs were on the clock, and the commish said "we have a trade", I was was jumping around my living room thinking we had done just that. Pretty dissapointed when I learned the terms were not that.

Pestilence
04-13-2012, 09:30 AM
You know, last year I was promoting this very thing to have 2 chips in the Luck derby. When the Chifs were on the clock, and the commish said "we have a trade", I was was jumping around my living room thinking we had done just that. Pretty dissapointed when I learned the terms were not that.

It's either that or we trade our 2nd round pick for a 1st round pick next year. It seems like that happens more often than completely trading out of the 1st round.

Coogs
04-13-2012, 09:40 AM
Who were the three teams that he beat?

2009
Oakland 16-10... 34 passes, 31 rushes
Pittsburgh 27-24... 30 passes, 20 rushes

2010
None in his infamous Pro-Bowl season

2011
Minnesota 22-17... 29 passes, 28 rushes


Chargers 23-20(Rivers fumbled snap game)... 32 passes, 32 rushes was the even up game

Coogs
04-13-2012, 09:42 AM
It's either that or we trade our 2nd round pick for a 1st round pick next year. It seems like that happens more often than completely trading out of the 1st round.

I had forgotten that Cleveland had Atlanta's first round pick for a little bit, and thought we were moving down to the 2nd round last year. I thought for sure we had our extra 1st rounder this year. Can you imagine have pick 4 and pick 11 this year?

BigMeatballDave
04-13-2012, 10:07 AM
I'm not really sure where I stand on Tannehill. But I do know this...

Matt Cassel is 18-22 in his 40 career starts with the Chiefs. He is 14-6 in games where we ran the ball more than we threw it. He is 1-0 in games where rushes and passes were equal. However, in a NFL that is classified as a passing first league, he is 3-16 when we put the ball in the air more than we run it.

Holy shit that's fucking horrible.

-King-
04-13-2012, 10:45 AM
Matt Cassel is a top 5 MVP candidate.

Wtf are you talking about? ROFL

Frosty
04-13-2012, 11:06 AM
Holy shit that's ****ing horrible.

I'm arguing with someone elsewhere that thinks that stat just means the Chiefs need to improve their run game even more. Look at Cassel's win percentage with the good running game; no need to replace him. :facepalm:

Frosty
04-13-2012, 11:08 AM
Always remember that Peter King is Piolis puppet.

Seems a lot like a set up for "well, we tried"

I thought Lombardi was the guy Pioli leaked stuff to, not King. :shrug:

BigMeatballDave
04-13-2012, 11:12 AM
I'm arguing with someone elsewhere that thinks that stat just means the Chiefs need to improve their run game even more. Look at Cassel's win percentage with the good running game; no need to replace him. :facepalm:Shoot them.

Seriously. Get a gun and unload in there skull.

:)

Frosty
04-13-2012, 11:34 AM
Shoot them.

Seriously. Get a gun and unload in there skull.

:)

That's okay. I'm not wasting any more time with that moron.

That said, it's still amazing to me how many people there are still pining for the '90's Chiefs style of football that didn't win squat. :rolleyes: Most of them are now pointing to the 2011 49ers as proof that style of football still works.

Warpaint69
04-13-2012, 11:36 AM
Replace Cassel with Tannehill? Thats not going to happen this year, Tannehill isn't ready to be a starter.

Coogs
04-13-2012, 11:40 AM
I'm arguing with someone elsewhere that thinks that stat just means the Chiefs need to improve their run game even more. Look at Cassel's win percentage with the good running game; no need to replace him. :facepalm:

What it tells me is that we have a team in place already that we could put a Stanzi or Tannehill out there with... rely on our running game... and let them learn the ropes while on the job.

Frankie
04-13-2012, 12:01 PM
We already have Cousins, it just says Stanzi on his jersey.Stanzi is probably better than Cousins.


I would be fine with Tannehill, Cousins, Osweiller, Foles and maybe Lindley out of this draft.If not Tannehill (at 11) then Osweiler later in the draft. The rest won't be as good as Stanzi, IMO.


If Tyler Bray declares, I imagine he'll leapfrog all of them as the #1 QB off the board.Bray is 6'5"-210. That's Croyle-thin.

If we are gonna have a shot at one of the franchise guys next year, its gonna take a rg3 type package of picks to move up to get one and Pioli has flat out said he would never trade "multiple first round picks" to move up in the draft.

It's a ****ing pipe dream to even think about.This, I agree with.

You either use a second or third this year to move up, or you are are sitting there next year HOPING FOR LANDRY ****ING JONES.This, I don't agree with.

The only way that I see us even having a shot at a QB next year is if we trade down as far as we can in this years draft. And I mean basically trade completely out of the 1st round.I've been saying this all along. But I think we still should roll the dice on Tanny at 11 if he's still there.

Pestilence
04-13-2012, 12:07 PM
<script src="http://player.espn.com/player.js?pcode=1kNG061cgaoolOncv54OAO1ceO-I&width=576&height=324&externalId=espn:7809279&thruParam_espn-ui[autoPlay]=false&thruParam_espn-ui[playRelatedExternally]=true"></script>

Frosty
04-13-2012, 12:10 PM
What it tells me is that we have a team in place already that we could put a Stanzi or Tannehill out there with... rely on our running game... and let them learn the ropes while on the job.

Works for me. The sooner the Chiefs cut their losses with Cassel and start trying to really develop a franchise QB, the better.

whoman69
04-13-2012, 12:13 PM
I'm not really sure where I stand on Tannehill. But I do know this...

Matt Cassel is 18-22 in his 40 career starts with the Chiefs. He is 14-6 in games where we ran the ball more than we threw it. He is 1-0 in games where rushes and passes were equal. However, in a NFL that is classified as a passing first league, he is 3-16 when we put the ball in the air more than we run it.

That tells me when the team needs to rely on Cassel, they cannot rely on Cassel. There isn't some magic formula that if you run the ball x times then you will win. If the team falls behind and you're still running, you absolutely will lose. If the team gets in a shootout, more common with the rules these days, the Chiefs will lose.

That's one of the things that scare me about Tannehill. In the games where his team needed him the most, he threw more interceptions. He checks down more than any rated QB in the country. You're exchanging Matt Cassel's sacks for Ryan Tannehill's interceptions.

Coogs
04-13-2012, 12:22 PM
That tells me when the team needs to rely on Cassel, they cannot rely on Cassel. There isn't some magic formula that if you run the ball x times then you will win. If the team falls behind and you're still running, you absolutely will lose. If the team gets in a shootout, more common with the rules these days, the Chiefs will lose.

That's one of the things that scare me about Tannehill. In the games where his team needed him the most, he threw more interceptions. He checks down more than any rated QB in the country. You're exchanging Matt Cassel's sacks for Ryan Tannehill's interceptions.

I totally concur with your first paragraph.

I'm just not educated enough about Tannehill to really know what to think. Only thing I have really seen on him, he had Fuller lined up to his left side and he looked/went there a lot without even looking for another option. And on top of that they rolled him out to his left... Fullers side... which is something I just really don't understand. Right hand QB's rolling left just damn near never works.

keg in kc
04-13-2012, 12:32 PM
It is a chicken-and-egg scenario in a sense. Teams losing pass more, as has been pointed out. So it shouldn't really be a surprise that the balance in losses leans more towards throwing the ball. But even acknowledging that, the reality is we're not ever going to win with Cassel throwing the ball.

keg in kc
04-13-2012, 12:33 PM
Stanzi is probably better than Cousins.Even if he is, you're talking about one NFL backup versus another.

Detoxing
04-13-2012, 12:34 PM
NFL Comparison to Jay Cutler? huh?

"According to Sporting News' Russ Lande, Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill has risen up draft boards because he "reminds many" around the NFL of a more consistent version of Jay Cutler.
Like most, Lande has Tannehill as the No. 3-rated quarterback in the 2012 draft class, behind only Robert Griffin III and Andrew Luck. He has Brandon Weeden fourth. Lande credits Tannehill with the strongest arm in the class, explaining that the ball "explodes out of Tannehill's hand" to beat closing defenders. Tannehill could go as early as No. 3 overall, and as late as No. 11."

DeezNutz
04-13-2012, 12:44 PM
So...we're not going to have a shot at a prospect like Tannehill for awhile. Is this the argument?

Thus, he's a far superior "prospect" than Flacco ('08), Freeman ('09), Sanchez ('09), and Dalton ('11)? The answer is no.

Would I rather have some of these guys than Cassel? Yes, but it's disingenuous to suggest that passing on Tannehill will absolutely doom us. He's intriguing and talented, but these types of guys are often available.

Now, the point remains that we need to identify a target and take a risk. And I'm great if Tannehill ends up fitting this bill.

Epic Fail 007
04-13-2012, 01:12 PM
Replace Cassel with Tannehill? Thats not going to happen this year, Tannehill isn't ready to be a starter.

Fact is you don`t know that. Nobody knows that but him.

Bewbies
04-13-2012, 01:14 PM
If a QB on average takes 3 years to mature into the NFL there's a lot to be gained by waiting for next year to draft one that has warts.

SNR
04-13-2012, 01:17 PM
Even if he is, you're talking about one NFL backup versus another.Which is why Cousins is going to get overdrafted this year, possibly in the 3rd or even 2nd round. And it's also why a team like Kansas City simply has no room on the roster for a guy like Cousins. Had we not drafted Stanzi, or even if we didn't sign Brady Quinn I might be thinking differently, that the competition between Cousins and Backup X would be intriguing to watch in training camp for seasons to come.

Teams that are in need of a back up guy with some a small chance to develop will take him. Could be San Diego, Denver, Green Bay, Chicago, Dallas, even a starved team like Miami or Cleveland. But teams like Kansas City, Arizona, Minnesota, Houston, Seattle, New York Jets would NOT do well at all to take Cousins. They've all got logjams at the QB position, even if those logjams aren't chock full of good QBs. Adding another backup to the mix in those situations is simply a waste of a high draft pick.

DJ's left nut
04-13-2012, 01:25 PM
NFL Comparison to Jay Cutler? huh?

"According to Sporting News' Russ Lande, Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill has risen up draft boards because he "reminds many" around the NFL of a more consistent version of Jay Cutler.
Like most, Lande has Tannehill as the No. 3-rated quarterback in the 2012 draft class, behind only Robert Griffin III and Andrew Luck. He has Brandon Weeden fourth. Lande credits Tannehill with the strongest arm in the class, explaining that the ball "explodes out of Tannehill's hand" to beat closing defenders. Tannehill could go as early as No. 3 overall, and as late as No. 11."

If you believe that, you move up to get him.

If you can get a more consistent version of Jay Cutler, you have one of the top 8 QBs in the NFL. And you probably have a SB contender as soon as 2013.

That's why I keep trying to say this is a scouts draft - there aren't many consensus players out there. If your scouts believe that Tannehill is a more consistent Cutler, you go get him.

If they believe he's Jake Plummer and that Foles has the ability to be Drew Bledsoe in a couple years, you go ahead and take Foles in the 3rd or 4th instead. If they think Osweiler can be someday give you a reasonable facsimile of Cam Newton, yeah you take him in the 2nd and smile about it.

It extends almost across the board. Can Barron cover, can Ingram's short arms transition to this level, etc...; there just seems to be more uncertainty regarding this draft than I can remember for a very very long time.

keg in kc
04-13-2012, 01:31 PM
Which is why Cousins is going to get overdrafted this year, possibly in the 3rd or even 2nd round. And it's also why a team like Kansas City simply has no room on the roster for a guy like Cousins. Had we not drafted Stanzi, or even if we didn't sign Brady Quinn I might be thinking differently, that the competition between Cousins and Backup X would be intriguing to watch in training camp for seasons to come.It really makes you wonder why Stanzi was drafted in the 5th last year. If the position is really as overvalued as it appears to be, then what was it about him that sent up the red flags?

(And no, I don't believe in anti-Iowa bias - teams will draft guys from lower east ****ville state polytechnic institute for blind nuns early in the draft if they like them, they'll do the same for Iowa players...)

DeezNutz
04-13-2012, 01:46 PM
If you believe that, you move up to get him.

If you can get a more consistent version of Jay Cutler, you have one of the top 8 QBs in the NFL. And you probably have a SB contender as soon as 2013.

That's why I keep trying to say this is a scouts draft - there aren't many consensus players out there. If your scouts believe that Tannehill is a more consistent Cutler, you go get him.

If they believe he's Jake Plummer and that Foles has the ability to be Drew Bledsoe in a couple years, you go ahead and take Foles in the 3rd or 4th instead. If they think Osweiler can be someday give you a reasonable facsimile of Cam Newton, yeah you take him in the 2nd and smile about it.

It extends almost across the board. Can Barron cover, can Ingram's short arms transition to this level, etc...; there just seems to be more uncertainty regarding this draft than I can remember for a very very long time.

I don't care if you drop the "more consistent" part. If Tannehill is Cutler, you go get the player.

Ben N 58men
04-13-2012, 01:47 PM
I don't care if you drop the "more consistent" part. If Tannehill is Cutler, you go get the player.


Agreed. Go get'em Pioli.

SNR
04-13-2012, 02:03 PM
It really makes you wonder why Stanzi was drafted in the 5th last year. If the position is really as overvalued as it appears to be, then what was it about him that sent up the red flags?

(And no, I don't believe in anti-Iowa bias - teams will draft guys from lower east ****ville state polytechnic institute for blind nuns early in the draft if they like them, they'll do the same for Iowa players...)NFL GMs hate 'Merica?

What I am about to propose sounds ridiculous because it would seem to imply that NFL scouts didn't do their homework at all. But in his first two years as a starter for Iowa, Stanzi was thick-headed. By that I mean he made gutsy yet stupid decisions. He threw a lot of picks, stalled key 4th quarter drives with poor decision-making, and wasn't very adept at reading coverage.

Those mistakes didn't disappear entirely in his senior season, but the really encouraging part was that those mental mistakes went down exponentially throughout his career as a starter, and that's even with the ankle injury. To me, that demonstrates that he's coachable. He's not only willing to learn, but he's absolutely capable of demonstrating that he learns on the football field.

Yet all the draft talk in 2010 about him was how he was Brett Favre without the rocket arm, and thus couldn't ever be trusted to start multiple seasons for an NFL team. We were talking about. Draft gurus were talking about it. Evaluators were talking about it. Hell, for the most part, the only people who projected good things in Stanzi's future for a long time were the Iowa fans (Boss, aturnis) and that guy who wrote the red flag report about how Stanzi is the second coming of Tom Brady. THEN Mel got into the action, but only very late.

Another QB from a BCS school also went in the 5th round, TJ Yates. He clearly has a different style of play than Stanzi, but I imagine the idea of him starting due to injury, coming out and WINNING a franchise's first ever playoff game without use of the best WR in the game didn't even remotely cross the minds of NFL scouts when they evaluated Yates. Yet watch Yates' college highlights. They're pretty damn impressive, actually.

I don't know if you have any ideas or theories about why Stanzi fell to the 5th. All I got is that as good as NFL scouts are, sometimes they miss players. Actually, not just sometimes. Every YEAR they miss players. Including QBs.

keg in kc
04-13-2012, 02:12 PM
I don't know if you have any ideas or theories about why Stanzi fell to the 5th. All I got is that as good as NFL scouts are, sometimes they miss players. Actually, not just sometimes. Every YEAR they miss players. Including QBs.My recollection from last offseason (not 2010) was that the pundits who were down on Stanzi (I'm not saying all the dratniks, just the ones who rated him in the mid- to late-round range...) believed that his ceiling was as a backup, and that it would probably be a project to get that much out of him. I happened to agree with that assertion, as you may or may not remember, and ultimately he was drafted exactly where I thought that he should go. Which doesn't mean that I'm right in what he'll be, only that my guess was right in terms of where he'd go. It's way too early to know what kind of player he'll ultimately be at this level.

The irony is that I've gone from being the guy who was vehemently against drafting him in the 2nd round to being the guy who's vehemently against putting him on the field too soon, and who promotes giving him as much time as he needs until he shows the team he's ready for a look (if that ever happens).

the Talking Can
04-13-2012, 02:17 PM
I'm not really sure where I stand on Tannehill. But I do know this...

Matt Cassel is 18-22 in his 40 career starts with the Chiefs. He is 14-6 in games where we ran the ball more than we threw it. He is 1-0 in games where rushes and passes were equal. However, in a NFL that is classified as a passing first league, he is 3-16 when we put the ball in the air more than we run it.

excellent post

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1CXgFYzok9w/TNuArKUHgsI/AAAAAAAAAG0/RMyakPfGaRs/s1600/bodyslam0016.jpg

keg in kc
04-13-2012, 02:18 PM
excellent post

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1CXgFYzok9w/TNuArKUHgsI/AAAAAAAAAG0/RMyakPfGaRs/s1600/bodyslam0016.jpgGotta ask: Did you hack into gochiefs porn stash?

SNR
04-13-2012, 02:19 PM
My recollection from last offseason (not 2010) was that the pundits who were down on Stanzi (I'm not saying all the dratniks, just the ones who rated him in the mid- to late-round range...) believed that his ceiling was as a backup, and that it would probably be a project to get that much out of him. I happened to agree with that assertion, as you may or may not remember, and ultimately he was drafted exactly where I thought that he should go. Which doesn't mean that I'm right in what he'll be, only that my guess was right in terms of where he'd go. It's way too early to know what kind of player he'll ultimately be at this level.

The irony is that I've gone from being the guy who was vehemently against drafting him in the 2nd round to being the guy who's vehemently against putting him on the field too soon, and who promotes giving him as much time as he needs until he shows the team he's ready for a look (if that ever happens).And that's what puzzles me about Cousins, who doesn't have the accuracy, footwork, or vision that Stanzi does. He looks clumsy out there.

Cousins has OTHER attributes that make him appealing- namely clutch play against pretty good teams, a low number of interceptions, and a very good balance of pocket presence/athleticism that makes him tough to bring down, because he can outsmart pass rushers. But in no way do I think those are good enough traits to put him in the 3rd round. At that spot, we're talking Ryan Mallett/Brodie Croyle kind of guys- leave them on the bench as a solid backup, and maybe when it's their turn they'll be exceptional. Cousins isn't that kind of QB.

the Talking Can
04-13-2012, 02:19 PM
stanzi was drafted in the 5th because no one thought he was worth drafting higher


ain't rocket science

keg in kc
04-13-2012, 02:22 PM
Yeah, I don't see a whole lot in Cousins, either. Sort of like Jeff Smoker 2.0.stanzi was drafted in the 5th because no one thought he was worth drafting higher


ain't rocket scienceWe're just trying to figure out why that was.

SNR
04-13-2012, 02:30 PM
How does Tom Brady fall to the 6th round? What is it scouts have to say about the guy that put him that low?

Again, I'm in no way saying Stanzi is a Tom Brady or even anything more than a career backup Sage Rosenfels-style. The confusing part is just that there's so much noise and differences of opinion on the player. There's no overwhelming portion of Chiefs fans or draft scouts last year that are just like, "Eh, he could be good, but odds are he's just gonna kind of sit around until he needs to be called forth, and then he won't be good enough to be marketable to other teams as a starter." There are tons of QBs like that in this year's draft- Cousins, Linley, Coleman, etc. It's either "5th rounder who has no long term value" or "future NFL starter."

the Talking Can
04-13-2012, 02:34 PM
Yeah, I don't see a whole lot in Cousins, either. Sort of like Jeff Smoker 2.0.We're just trying to figure out why that was.

because he's thought to be not that good....

SNR
04-13-2012, 02:44 PM
because he's thought to be not that good....
And again, Tom Brady was assumedly thought to be not that good. Why? Did teams just forget about him? What didn't they like on his report that caused them to say, "This small school defensive tackle is a better decision than a guy with the college experience, arm, and winning percentage of Tom Brady"

the Talking Can
04-13-2012, 02:48 PM
And again, Tom Brady was assumedly thought to be not that good. Why? Did teams just forget about him? What didn't they like on his report that caused them to say, "This small school defensive tackle is a better decision than a guy with the college experience, arm, and winning percentage of Tom Brady"

because he wasn't that good when he was drafted...he looked like a 9 yr old

and he's the 1 in a million exception...they're right about late round QBs 99% of the time

lostcause
04-13-2012, 02:51 PM
Brady and cassel have similar college careers. If Bledsoe doesn't get hurt and the pats defense doesn't beat the rams, then Tom Brady may be stocking shelves at Walmart.

Detoxing
04-13-2012, 02:51 PM
because he wasn't that good when he was drafted...he looked like a 9 yr old

and he's the 1 in a million exception...they're right about late round QBs 99% of the time

If you didn't think he was "that good" when he was drafted, then i don't think you watched very many Michigan games at the time.

Detoxing
04-13-2012, 02:51 PM
Brady and cassel have similar college careers.

lol wut?

the Talking Can
04-13-2012, 02:53 PM
If you didn't think he was "that good" when he was drafted, then i don't think you watched very many Michigan games at the time.

i see....you saw the hall of famer literally no one else on earth saw...

awesome

why do people insist on complicating a simple subject?

QBs are drafted late because everyone thinks they suck...every once a decade they're proven wrong...they're proven right the other 9999 times

Frosty
04-13-2012, 02:54 PM
lol wut?

You missed Brady never starting at QB and only playing TE and special teams at Michigan?

DeezNutz
04-13-2012, 02:56 PM
If you didn't think he was "that good" when he was drafted, then i don't think you watched very many Michigan games at the time.

Michigan fans used to boo Brady and want Henson.

Bewbies
04-13-2012, 02:57 PM
Yeah, I don't see a whole lot in Cousins, either. Sort of like Jeff Smoker 2.0.We're just trying to figure out why that was.

People that are first round talent are drafted in the first. People that are fifth round talent are drafted in the 5th.

People try to claim players have higher or lower value from where they're drafted, if that were true they'd be drafted somewhere else.

Detoxing
04-13-2012, 02:57 PM
i see....you saw the hall of famer literally no one else on earth saw...

awesome

why do people insist on complicating a simple subject?

QBs are drafted late because everyone thinks they suck...every once a decade they're proven wrong...they're proven right the other 9999 times

Obviously not, smart ass, but he didn't "suck" either.

Detoxing
04-13-2012, 02:59 PM
Michigan fans used to boo Brady and want Henson.

I was a Michigan fan at the time, i remember both QB's. I don't recall ever watching Brady "suck"

the Talking Can
04-13-2012, 02:59 PM
Obviously not, smart ass, but he didn't "suck" either.

yes, we have established he is the single exception....

and?

Bewbies
04-13-2012, 03:00 PM
Brady and cassel have similar college careers. If Bledsoe doesn't get hurt and the pats defense doesn't beat the rams, then Tom Brady may be stocking shelves at Walmart.

You are retarded.

DeezNutz
04-13-2012, 03:01 PM
I was a Michigan fan at the time, i remember both QB's. I don't recall ever watching Brady "suck"

Was he ever booed at home? Reports are that he was. Petro rants about it all the time when talking about hindsight draft analysis. Says he was in the house when fans went ape shit on Brady, booing him and yelling for Henson.

-King-
04-13-2012, 03:22 PM
Russ Lande: Tannehill has strongest arm in 2012 draft
Posted by Evan Silva on April 13, 2012, 3:22 PM EDT


Former Ravens head coach Brian Billick isn’t high on former Texas A&M quarterback Ryan Tannehill as a 2012 draft prospect, but league evaluators certainly seem to be. Tannehill is widely regarded as a surefire top-12 pick.

Russ Lande of Sporting News isn’t in the league anymore, but he has experience as an NFL scout. Now a leading “draftnik,” Lande rates Tannehill with the strongest arm among quarterbacks in the 2012 draft class.

“Tannehill has risen up draft boards so fast because he reminds many of a more consistent Jay Cutler,” Lande wrote in a piece ranking and analyzing this year’s draft-eligible quarterbacks. “The ball explodes out of Tannehill’s hand and gets to the receiver before defenders can make a play.”

Tannehill is suddenly the most polarizing player in the draft. Thursday’s episode of NFL Live on ESPN opened with a Todd McShay-Mel Kiper back-and-forth argument debating Tannehill’s draft-day value, as well as his outlook as an NFL player.

McShay is much higher on Tannehill than Kiper. Appearing on ESPN radio Thursday, McShay opined that Tannehill’s physical talent is superior to currently projected 2013 No. 1 overall pick Matt Barkley.

“I think [Tannehill] has greater upside, physically,” McShay said. “I just look at the two. Tannehill has a better arm, more mobile. I think he has better tools [than Barkley] if he can get there.”
Permalink 54 Comments Feed for comments

keg in kc
04-13-2012, 03:24 PM
Brady did pretty well at Michigan, but initially he couldn't get on the field because of Brian Griese and then later when he finally did get to start a lot of fans wanted to see Drew Henson play instead, who was at the time as I recall a very highly-rated recruit.

He was not Hall of Fame good, though. I don't remember ever seeing anything from him that would make me think he was going to be one of the best NFL qb's of all time. Although his Orange Bowl performance may have been an early sign.

Thing is, he's a once-in-a-lifetime story, just like Kurt Warner. Just because a guy bagging groceries turns into an all pro doesn't mean you should be scouring Kroger's nationwide for the next big thing.

Frankie
04-13-2012, 04:23 PM
"According to Sporting News' Russ Lande, Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill has risen up draft boards because he "reminds many" around the NFL of a more consistent version of Jay Cutler."If I could believe that I'd definitely support a trade up to 7. As it is I'd be happy enough getting him at 11.

If a QB on average takes 3 years to mature into the NFL there's a lot to be gained by not waiting for next year to draft one that has warts.FYP. I think THAT's what you meant.

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-13-2012, 04:27 PM
With the names thrown around for KC's 1st round pick...Fuck it, take a shot on the kid.

It's not going to set the team back passing on a guard, ILB, center, or yet ANOTHER 3-4 end.

Frankie
04-13-2012, 04:29 PM
stanzi was drafted in the 5th because no one thought he was worth drafting higher

ain't rocket science

"Brady"'s the 1 in a million exception...they're right about late round QBs 99% of the time

yes, we have established he is the single exception....

and?
Really?! Kurt Warner begs to differ. And if I thought hard enough I'd come up with other successful QB's without much draft love. There goes your "1 in a million exception" theory. And that's just staying with QBs. Arian Foster, Priest Holmes, Marques Colston, etc., etc., etc., all beg to differ too.

DeezNutz
04-13-2012, 04:34 PM
Really?! Kurt Warner begs to differ. And if I thought hard enough I'd come up with other successful QB's without much draft love. There goes your "1 in a million exception" theory. And that's just staying with QBs. Arian Foster, Priest Holmes, Marques Colston, etc., etc., etc., all beg to differ too.

No one cares about the success of other positions. You counter the Brady Mega-Million ticket with the Warner Powerball number. Excellent.

SNR
04-13-2012, 04:56 PM
Just because a guy bagging groceries turns into an all pro doesn't mean you should be scouring Kroger's nationwide for the next big thing.And yet that appears to be exactly what Pioli's draft strategy is in terms of finding a QB.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong this year and he'll take Tannehill. But I doubt it.

whoman69
04-13-2012, 04:57 PM
No one cares about the success of other positions. You counter the Brady Mega-Million ticket with the Warner Powerball number. Excellent.

QB is probably the hardest position to get a grip on during the draft. Many thought Ryan Leaf should have been picked over Peyton Manning. Guys like Jamarcus Russell leaped up the draft charts despite warning signs beyond just the physical. Nobody has a full book on Tannehill. Great arm doesn't mean great QB. Ask Jeff George.

BossChief
04-13-2012, 04:59 PM
Romo
Shaub
Hasselbback
Fitzpatrick
Brady

Thats 5 quality NFL starters off the top of my head that fell in the draft.

keg in kc
04-13-2012, 05:01 PM
And yet that appears to be exactly what Pioli's draft strategy is in terms of finding a QB.I think that's a bit of a misperception. Their strategy for QBs have been to have one in place (Bledsoe, trade 2nd for Cassel) and then to use low round picks for depth. Occasionally those low round picks pan out to be more than backup fodder. But I don't think for a second they're specifically looking for starting QBs in the low rounds.

Spending that 2nd on an "established" (in their eyes) quarterback shows, to me at least, they take the position seriously, even if it wasn't the guy I wanted. It just happens that they missed. Maybe it's time to make another move for a starter, maybe it's not.

I think part of the issue is Cassel's injury. I believed at the time it was bad for us long term and I still believe that now. I think if he'd played the whole year healthy, he'd be gone now.

Frankie
04-13-2012, 05:04 PM
No one cares about the success of other positions. You counter the Brady Mega-Million ticket with the Warner Powerball number. Excellent.

Comparing the chances of finding a Brady or a Warner in the later rounds of any draft to the odds of winning the Powerball or Mega-Million is disingenuous.

And why not include other positions in the debate? This is a thread about a QB, I know, but there are unexpected hits in the late rounds of drafts every year.

BossChief
04-13-2012, 05:05 PM
Something that probably hurt Stanzis stock was that he didn't really need to have a lot of big passing games to win. His running attack, defense and offensive line were always good so he didn't need to go out there and put up a lot of 300 yard games.

In fact, I don't know if he EVER had a 300 yard game at Iowa.

Didnt need to, just look at the win/loss ratio.

keg in kc
04-13-2012, 05:06 PM
Romo
Shaub
Hasselbback
Fitzpatrick
Brady

Thats 5 quality NFL starters off the top of my head that fell in the draft.There are tons and tons of middle and low round guys over the years, that's not the point. The point is that Brady is so far beyond everybody else in that category (aside from Montana) that it's not even close. If you want 'guys' at quarterback you can look in the later rounds. If you want franchise players you have to look early. And some franchises are okay with 'guys'. We've been one of those franchises, unfortunately. And I think we still are now. I believe they want a Manning long term (who wouldn't), but I don't think they're either in a position or willing to sacrifice what it takes to get there, so they're willing (historically) to settle for the best they can get off the 'also ran' heap. Which is why we're left debating about the merits of Orton versus Cassel, or discussing Stanzi playing, or talking about a 2nd tier player like Tannehill.

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-13-2012, 05:13 PM
I would not be satisfied with Ryan Fitzpatrick at QB, not even close.

BossChief
04-13-2012, 05:17 PM
Yup, Stanzi only had one 300 yard game. 2009 against Indiana.

3 year starter...28 wins.

Chocolate Hog
04-13-2012, 05:22 PM
I should find the clip where they talked about Stanzi hiring someone to work on his footwork at the SR. Bowl

SNR
04-13-2012, 05:23 PM
I would not be satisfied with Ryan Fitzpatrick at QB, not even close.When Buffalo gave Fitzpatrick that fresh new contract I actually got down on my knees and thanked the Baby Jesus that he blessed me with perpetual playoff misery and guys like Matt Cassel as a Chiefs fan, and that he didn't make me a Buffalo Bills fan.

Direckshun
04-13-2012, 05:26 PM
Matt Cassel is 18-22 in his 40 career starts with the Chiefs. He is 14-6 in games where we ran the ball more than we threw it. He is 1-0 in games where rushes and passes were equal. However, in a NFL that is classified as a passing first league, he is 3-16 when we put the ball in the air more than we run it.

Wow.

DeezNutz
04-13-2012, 05:27 PM
Comparing the chances of finding a Brady or a Warner in the later rounds of any draft to the odds of winning the Powerball or Mega-Million is disingenuous.

And why not include other positions in the debate? This is a thread about a QB, I know, but there are unexpected hits in the late rounds of drafts every year.

Because it's easier to find productive RBs, for example. Hell, Charles himself is an example of this.

QBs are diamonds.

TRR
04-13-2012, 05:28 PM
QB is probably the hardest position to get a grip on during the draft. Many thought Ryan Leaf should have been picked over Peyton Manning. Guys like Jamarcus Russell leaped up the draft charts despite warning signs beyond just the physical. Nobody has a full book on Tannehill. Great arm doesn't mean great QB. Ask Jeff George.

What's nice about Tannehill is the intangibles are there. He is striving to become an orthopedic surgeon and you have to admire his perseverance at A&M saying all along that he wanted to play QB, but helping the team out very well at WR. When he got his shot he made the most of it and had a very good 11' season with an average group around him. His play at QB really brough that team together.
Posted via Mobile Device

DeezNutz
04-13-2012, 05:28 PM
Wow.

Agreed. Pioli has to have those statistics, right?

Coogs with one hell of a post.

DeezNutz
04-13-2012, 05:31 PM
I'm not really sure where I stand on Tannehill. But I do know this...

Matt Cassel is 18-22 in his 40 career starts with the Chiefs. He is 14-6 in games where we ran the ball more than we threw it. He is 1-0 in games where rushes and passes were equal. However, in a NFL that is classified as a passing first league, he is 3-16 when we put the ball in the air more than we run it.

Honestly, this post should damn near be its own stickied thread so that all know the suck that is Cassel. No debate. No misunderstanding.

BossChief
04-13-2012, 05:35 PM
Honestly, this post should damn near be its own stickied thread so that all know the suck that is Cassel. No debate. No misunderstanding.

I'd make it my sig if I could.

OnTheWarpath58
04-13-2012, 05:35 PM
I'm not really sure where I stand on Tannehill. But I do know this...

Matt Cassel is 18-22 in his 40 career starts with the Chiefs. He is 14-6 in games where we ran the ball more than we threw it. He is 1-0 in games where rushes and passes were equal. However, in a NFL that is classified as a passing first league, he is 3-16 when we put the ball in the air more than we run it.

The bold is damning evidence on its own.

The rest just solidifies my desire that this regime has nothing to do with choosing the next "franchise" QB of the Kansas City Chiefs.

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-13-2012, 05:36 PM
When Buffalo gave Fitzpatrick that fresh new contract I actually got down on my knees and thanked the Baby Jesus that he blessed me with perpetual playoff misery and guys like Matt Cassel as a Chiefs fan, and that he didn't make me a Buffalo Bills fan.

The fans that didn't jump off a cliff when they gave him that deal, certainly did after his 9 TD 14 Pick 2nd half.

BossChief
04-13-2012, 05:37 PM
haha

Cassel 3:16

OnTheWarpath58
04-13-2012, 05:38 PM
haha

Cassel 3:16

LMAO

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-13-2012, 05:41 PM
3-16 eh?




Posted from midair screaming whilst jumping off a cliff

DeezNutz
04-13-2012, 05:41 PM
Yep. What was it? 4-6-38? Microcosm of the shit that was Haley.

Now it's 3-16. Microcosm of the shit that is Pioli. Have to hope that we can run his worthless ass, too.

Chocolate Hog
04-13-2012, 05:47 PM
haha

Cassel 3:16

New sig

BossChief
04-13-2012, 05:52 PM
coogs deserves the credit for that.

not me

BossChief
04-13-2012, 05:55 PM
Yep. What was it? 4-6-38? Microcosm of the shit that was Haley.

Now it's 3-16. Microcosm of the shit that is Pioli. Have to hope that we can run his worthless ass, too.

I dont think you can put that all on Pioli.

Can you say that Mark Sanchez would have had a better w/l than that if we drafted him instead of trading for Cassel?

I think Pioli has done a near masterful job of building this roster and hasnt really had "franchise quarterback" options as of yet.

BigMeatballDave
04-13-2012, 05:58 PM
Honestly, this post should damn near be its own stickied thread so that all know the suck that is Cassel. No debate. No misunderstanding.

We're all aware.

Email it to Pioli.

KurtCobain
04-13-2012, 05:58 PM
I think Pioli has done a near masterful job of building this roster and hasnt really had "franchise quarterback" options as of yet.

Oh yeah, that nails it. Who the fuck was he supposed to get?

Bewbies
04-13-2012, 06:00 PM
I dont think you can put that all on Pioli.

Can you say that Mark Sanchez would have had a better w/l than that if we drafted him instead of trading for Cassel?

I think Pioli has done a near masterful job of building this roster and hasnt really had "franchise quarterback" options as of yet.

I don't know what kind of effort he put into moving up for Stafford, but I actually tend to agree with this...

*ducks and covers head

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-13-2012, 06:01 PM
Don't worry!! Incinerated Blob says the Chiefs are hot after the Sanchize :whackit:

SNR
04-13-2012, 06:04 PM
Cassel 3:16

For Pioli so loved the True Fans that he gave his only 2nd round pick so that all those who fear winning would not tank the season to draft a franchise QB, but instead have an AFC West championship every four years.

Chocolate Hog
04-13-2012, 06:05 PM
Does anyone here even support Cassel anymore?

whoman69
04-13-2012, 06:24 PM
Does anyone here even support Cassel anymore?

LAChiefsfan

Bewbies
04-13-2012, 06:29 PM
Nobody supports Cassel, very few support a move that removes him from KC.

keg in kc
04-13-2012, 06:32 PM
I don't think Sanchez would have made much difference. Instead of trading a 2nd round pick for a bad QB, we'd have been spending a top-5 pick on one. Maybe he 'gets it' sometime soon, maybe he doesn't, but for that high a pick, it needed to click in 2010 or 2011, and he should now be pushing the top tier of QBs in the league. Much like Stafford last year.

BigMeatballDave
04-13-2012, 06:35 PM
LAChiefsfanHe's trolling

DeezNutz
04-13-2012, 10:09 PM
I dont think you can put that all on Pioli.

Can you say that Mark Sanchez would have had a better w/l than that if we drafted him instead of trading for Cassel?

I think Pioli has done a near masterful job of building this roster and hasnt really had "franchise quarterback" options as of yet.

1. I do. He's paid to be the best.
2. No clue.
3. No, he hasn't. The second part is yet to be determined.
4. Options: Freeman, Sanchez, Dalton, Manning, Orton. Hell...if Cassel goes to Denver...Cutler. I'd rather have any of these than Cassel. All have far more potential.

There are always options. And thus Pioli can go **** himself.

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-13-2012, 10:59 PM
I don't consider Freeman, Dalton, or Sanchez "Franchise QB's". Right now they aren't even close. If you do, you are holding them to lesser standards.

BossChief
04-13-2012, 11:27 PM
1. I do. He's paid to be the best.
2. No clue.
3. No, he hasn't. The second part is yet to be determined.
4. Options: Freeman, Sanchez, Dalton, Manning, Orton. Hell...if Cassel goes to Denver...Cutler. I'd rather have any of these than Cassel. All have far more potential.

There are always options. And thus Pioli can go **** himself.

Cutler was a bronco and wouldn't have been an option.

I was never a fan of Sanchez, Freeman or Dalton. Even though I didn't like any of them, I would have supported them had we picked them. I can see why Pioli chose to go another route, though. Those guys had serious questions as prospects and Pioli saw Cassel have an ok year in 2008 that showed some promise.

If he passes on this Tannehill kid and he goes on to succeed somewhere else and Cassel continues to be Cassel...Pioli better hope Stanzi works out, or he would probably deserve to get fired.

I wanted us to bring Orton back, but I also want to win a superbowl and don't see him as a guy we would ever get that far with.

Manning not considering us is alarming, though. Hopefully something real comes out about why he saw Denver as a better option than us.

beach tribe
04-14-2012, 12:15 AM
Bump.
Arkansas to page 2.

Von Dumbass
04-14-2012, 12:38 AM
Don't worry!! Incinerated Blob says the Chiefs are hot after the Sanchize :whackit:

He never said that. He said that the Jets put Sanchez on the block and then later said the Jets were trying to trade up with KC or SEA. I'm the one who speculated that the Chiefs try to get Sanchez if they trade down with the Jets.

Von Dumbass
04-14-2012, 12:43 AM
Manning not considering us is alarming, though. Hopefully something real comes out about why he saw Denver as a better option than us.

He didn't know anybody in KC. That is why he didn't consider us. He had relationships with Fox, Elway, Munchek, and Whisenhunt he doesn't have any in KC.

Manning believed that he could win anywhere he went, so him being in a comfortable environment was more important to him than anything else.

J Diddy
04-14-2012, 12:43 AM
Cutler was a bronco and wouldn't have been an option.

I was never a fan of Sanchez, Freeman or Dalton. Even though I didn't like any of them, I would have supported them had we picked them. I can see why Pioli chose to go another route, though. Those guys had serious questions as prospects and Pioli saw Cassel have an ok year in 2008 that showed some promise.

If he passes on this Tannehill kid and he goes on to succeed somewhere else and Cassel continues to be Cassel...Pioli better hope Stanzi works out, or he would probably deserve to get fired.

I wanted us to bring Orton back, but I also want to win a superbowl and don't see him as a guy we would ever get that far with.

Manning not considering us is alarming, though. Hopefully something real comes out about why he saw Denver as a better option than us.
IMO, Elway sold him on denver. Former hall of fame qb in charge.


Manning's gonna get tambahawked soon enough.

BigMeatballDave
04-14-2012, 12:57 AM
He didn't know anybody in KC. That is why he didn't consider us. He had relationships with Fox, Elway, Munchek, and Whisenhunt he doesn't have any in KC.

Manning believed that he could win anywhere he went, so him being in a comfortable environment was more important to him than anything else.
If Manning was serious about winning another SB he'd have went to SF.

It was all about the money. Always is. Denver had the most cap space and offered the most.

Period.

BossChief
04-14-2012, 01:00 AM
Honestly, Romeo obviously knows multiple "tells" on Manning as he has had his number for some time now. If Manning doesnt have all his previous arm strength, I can see our defense getting the best of him quite a bit. Especially next year.

To say Manning didn't know anyone in KC may be true, but it's hard to think he would want to "go over to the dark side" after all the years playing against Piolis teams and Romeos defenses. You would have to think he knows them well enough to consider them, bit maybe he wanted more control than we were willing to give up for a 36 year old quarterback with a chicken arm to throw with. I do know for certain that he didn't want to compete with any division teams in his decision...presumably for medical secrecy reasons.

It's a shame. I will always think KC would have given him the best chance at more rings.

Chocolate Hog
04-14-2012, 01:05 AM
I think him saying he didn't know anybody was a nice way of saying Romeo sucked as a HC and Daboll is a proven loser.

BossChief
04-14-2012, 01:05 AM
I should find the clip where they talked about Stanzi hiring someone to work on his footwork at the SR. Bowl

If Manning was serious about winning another SB he'd have went to SF.

It was all about the money. Always is. Denver had the most cap space and offered the most.

Period.

He could have made more money elsewhere if that was the purpose of it all.

There are always ways.

Buy a local company and pay Manning an "endorsement deal" for said company. Offer a future with the team after football.

I don't think money was as important to the decision as some may think.

That's why I'd like to know more on why he didn't view us as a better option, bit we will never find out.

Von Dumbass
04-14-2012, 01:12 AM
If Manning was serious about winning another SB he's have went to SF.

It was all about the money. Always is. Denver had the most cap space and offered the most.

Period.

That honestly wasn't the case. Andrew Brandt and numerous other respected people said that Manning could have gotten a lot more than that. QB's like Peyton NEVER hit the open market, and if Manning wanted to he could have let EVERY team in the league get in on the process, creating a bidding war the likes of which the NFL has never seen.

If it was all about the money Peyton probably would have wound up in Seattle, who had $36M in cap space. Pat Bowlen couldn't compete with the signing bonus that a guy like Paul Allen could give Peyton, Bowlen doesn't have that kind of cash.

Instead, Manning narrowed his list to places he felt comfortable and every team that was in the hunt was aware that the contract was going to resemble his previous contract. There was no bidding war, everyone knew the price going into it.

Von Dumbass
04-14-2012, 01:16 AM
Certain Peyton could have used leverage to take on less risk in contract. A rare instance where "it's not about the money" rings true

https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt/status/182179782233042944

My initial reaction is that Manning could have leveraged much more money if he wanted to. The Titans and Seahawks probably would have paid more and required less protection. This is a contract where the player saying, “It’s not about the money” truly means that. There are few deals in sports that are by definition good for both sides. This appears to be one.


http://espn.go.com/brandt-assessing-peyton-manning (http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/55762/brandt-assessing-peyton-manning%E2%80%99s-deal)

the Talking Can
04-14-2012, 04:07 AM
Really?! Kurt Warner begs to differ. And if I thought hard enough I'd come up with other successful QB's without much draft love. There goes your "1 in a million exception" theory. And that's just staying with QBs. Arian Foster, Priest Holmes, Marques Colston, etc., etc., etc., all beg to differ too.

wow...2 in a million QBs

now start listing all the late round QBs that sucked.....all of them

jspchief
04-14-2012, 04:14 AM
wow...2 in a million QBs

now start listing all the late round QBs that sucked.....all of them

It's a stupid argument.

I think we all realize that its "possible" that Stanzi could be a great NFL QB, while at the same time realizing that the odds are greatly stacked against that being the case.

milkman
04-14-2012, 08:39 AM
No. ****ing hell no. Stanzi > Cousins.

Again, unless Cassel or Quinn gets cut, taking a QB not named Luck, RGIII, or Tannehill is a stupid idea. If we draft a QB, we have to draft a QB to be the franchise, not to just wait and see if he can beat out Quinn or Stanzi in two years. The guy we draft has to affect our plans long-term, and we have to prepare the way for him to start some games next year. We can't just wait for injury or a convenient time to give him the reins.

I see Tannehill as that kind of QB capable of taking over. All other QBs in this class can go **** themselves.

I disagree with this.

I believe there are QBs with the tools to be franchise QBs that should sit for a while before they are given the reins.

I also believe that if you think that a QB has both the physical and mental tools to be a franchise QB, whether he's a guy that you believe can start right away, or a guy that you believe needs some coaching before he starts, you take him high.


The only for-certains coming out next year that we should remotely give a shit about at this point are Barkley, Wilson, and (maybe) Jones.

If Tyler Bray declares, I imagine he'll leapfrog all of them as the #1 QB off the board. Aaron Murray could do the same thing.

The rest of those guys are going to have to do something impressive like RGIII did this past season to get on the radar as a 1st rounder.

I'm not a huge fan of Barkley at all. If we traded up to get this turd I might be kind of pissed about that, actually. I'd rather stay wherever it is we're drafting and take the 3rd or 4th guy, whether that's Wilson or (gag) Jones.

I am torn about Jones.

I think he's going to be every bit as successful as Matt Cassel, but if the Chiefs drafted him in the first round, I don't know if I'm going to be pissed, or I'm going to actually feel relieved that they finally, after years and years of futility with cast offs and rejects, took a shot at a first round QB.

Von Dumbass
04-14-2012, 09:01 AM
Are the Chiefs going to get Tannehill? ... Not unless they're moving on up.

https://twitter.com/#!/AdamSchefter/status/191165448715378689

Chiefshrink
04-14-2012, 11:26 AM
Honestly, Romeo obviously knows multiple "tells" on Manning as he has had his number for some time now. If Manning doesnt have all his previous arm strength, I can see our defense getting the best of him quite a bit. Especially next year.

To say Manning didn't know anyone in KC may be true, but it's hard to think he would want to "go over to the dark side" after all the years playing against Piolis teams and Romeos defenses. You would have to think he knows them well enough to consider them, bit maybe he wanted more control than we were willing to give up for a 36 year old quarterback with a chicken arm to throw with. I do know for certain that he didn't want to compete with any division teams in his decision...presumably for medical secrecy reasons.

It's a shame. I will always think KC would have given him the best chance at more rings.

Awesome "RAZOR SHARP" analysis BossChief !! I would also say that he has very close friends(Helton & Stokely) here in Denver that were very influential and pivotal which makes it much easier to pull up roots and move.

1a. Elway -Kindred SB QB kindred spirit connecting with Elway who he respects a lot, not to mention Manning will have full control of the O. Also Manning would be the first SB QB to win 2 SB's with 2 different teams which would make him the sole owner of that record in HOF-big motivator for Manning who is a literal stat historian when it comes to the NFL. And he would much rather to do this with Elway than Crennel who he despises.

1b. Very close friends -Helton/Stokely

I can logically see how Manning sees this as the stars aligning in his favor and not necessarily from a 100% football perspective either, going to Denver.

No way in hell he comes to KC to play for Crennel who owns him because if he did, in his mind that would be admitting Crennel wins. You are absolutely correct BossChief that EGO had everything to do with Manning not coming to KC!! Because when you compare both teams the Chiefs are far closer to a SB ring in talent than Denver.

Chiefshrink
04-14-2012, 11:32 AM
Are the Chiefs going to get Tannehill? ... Not unless they're moving on up.

https://twitter.com/#!/AdamSchefter/status/191165448715378689

Swapping either with Miami or Jax. But no way, this is all a poker play by Pioli so he can trade down IF Tannehill falls to the Chiefs.

Bowser
04-14-2012, 11:34 AM
Swapping either with Miami or Jax. But no way, this is all a poker play by Pioli so he can trade down IF Tannehill falls to the Chiefs.

Let's hope he trades down even if he doesn't fall to us.

Chiefshrink
04-14-2012, 11:44 AM
Let's hope he trades down even if he doesn't fall to us.

Yep !!:thumb:

SNR
04-14-2012, 11:44 AM
I disagree with this.

I believe there are QBs with the tools to be franchise QBs that should sit for a while before they are given the reins.

I also believe that if you think that a QB has both the physical and mental tools to be a franchise QB, whether he's a guy that you believe can start right away, or a guy that you believe needs some coaching before he starts, you take him high.
And I totally agree with that as well. But I just think it's a bad idea to draft a developmental prospect, coach him for a year, then draft another developmental prospect and cut the last one you drafted. It kind of defeats the purpose of drafting a developmental prospect at all if you see a younger, shinier QB that you want every year.

I would love to draft a guy like Foles in the 3rd round and cut Cassel or Quinn- guys we've seen enough of and guys who have had plenty of time to get the job done and failed. But I think we all know what the Patriot Way has to say about that.

O.city
04-14-2012, 11:55 AM
Cassel isn't getting cut this year, no matter what. Quinn could i guess if someone just outplays him.

SNR
04-14-2012, 11:57 AM
Cassel isn't getting cut this year, no matter what. Quinn could i guess if someone just outplays him.Anybody here know anything about framing athletes/celebrities for child molestation crimes?

O.city
04-14-2012, 11:59 AM
After last years Palko debacle, I doubt Pioli wants to go with an inexperienced backup.


Unless of course he wants to get rid of Crennell? I kid.

lostcause
04-14-2012, 12:00 PM
As for Manning, I've always assumed the rumor of Pioli sending out a contract day one was true. I also imagined it wasn't in peyton's ballpark and the talks never got started after that.

Chiefshrink
04-14-2012, 12:17 PM
After last years Palko debacle, I doubt Pioli wants to go with an inexperienced backup.

As far as I'm concerned we 'do not' have an experienced b/u on the roster.

I like Billy Volek but he would be a threat to Cassel because Volek would be the starter after TC is over;)

whoman69
04-14-2012, 12:18 PM
wow...2 in a million QBs

now start listing all the late round QBs that sucked.....all of them

If you list all the first round busts.

Frankie
04-14-2012, 01:17 PM
wow...2 in a million QBs

now start listing all the late round QBs that sucked.....all of them

And add Leaf, Russell, Coach, Schlichter, Klingler, Boller, Akili Smith, Carr, etc., etc., etc..... to it. All high first rounders.

Frankie
04-14-2012, 01:29 PM
Cassel isn't getting cut this year, no matter what. Quinn could i guess if someone just outplays him.

Probably not, but if I'm Pioli, and Tanny happens to fall to 11, I'd pick him and try to trade Cassel on draft day. If not for a straight draft pick, at least as ammo to move up on a particular round or as a 2013 draft choice. With the talent starting to assemble around Stanzi and Tannehill, it's not like throwing them to the sharks. We are not going after the big trophy this year, but if the rest of the team carries one of the young QBs and prevents his psyche from going to mush he'll be ready to roll next year.

DeezNutz
04-14-2012, 01:30 PM
And add Leaf, Russell, Coach, Schlichter, Klingler, Boller, Akili Smith, Carr, etc., etc., etc..... to it. All high first rounders.

Which is why I've always advocated selecting a safer position in the first round, like WR or D-line.

keg in kc
04-14-2012, 02:39 PM
Let's put it this way. You might have a 5% chance that your first round draft pick turns into a true franchise quarterback. There's a 0.000005% chance that your late round pick turns into one. I know which odds I'd prefer.

O.city
04-14-2012, 02:43 PM
People tend to think that franchise qb's are easy to find. Well not really easy to find but are easier to attain than they actually are.



I'd say there are probably 5 legit franchise guys and about 6 or 7 guys that have that potential. Now they all won't get there for various reasons.


Look at a guy like Matt Ryan, has all the tools physically but isn't quite there yet. Same with Stafford, for different reasons.

evolve27
04-14-2012, 02:51 PM
People tend to think that franchise qb's are easy to find. Well not really easy to find but are easier to attain than they actually are.



I'd say there are probably 5 legit franchise guys and about 6 or 7 guys that have that potential. Now they all won't get there for various reasons.


Look at a guy like Matt Ryan, has all the tools physically but isn't quite there yet. Same with Stafford, for different reasons.

Do you think we should trade up for Tannehill?

O.city
04-14-2012, 02:53 PM
Do you think we should trade up for Tannehill?

Trade up? I dunno, probably not.



If they think he's the guy, yeah I could get on board with it. However, I don't really think they will be willing to trade up.


I honestly would tend to think that Pioli would view Stanzi as a better prospect as he fits the bill a little better.

SNR
04-14-2012, 03:03 PM
People tend to think that franchise qb's are easy to find. Well not really easy to find but are easier to attain than they actually are.



I'd say there are probably 5 legit franchise guys and about 6 or 7 guys that have that potential. Now they all won't get there for various reasons.


Look at a guy like Matt Ryan, has all the tools physically but isn't quite there yet. Same with Stafford, for different reasons.I wholeheartedly agree.

We had this discussion months ago about the nature of a franchise QB and how one defines it. If we're only talking about active QBs who have won Super Bowls (and who still have the skills to potentially get the job done), then you have six names, which is very close to your guess of five.

Brady
Rodgers
Manning
Manning
Roethlisberger
Brees

The thing about this is after that list of six the talent drop off is pretty dramatic. You have guys like Philip Rivers and Michael Vick who have fairly decent playoff records, excellent stats, and a moxi on the field that closely resembles the Big Six. After that is a huge soup of game managers on teams with fantastic defenses, and a bunch of Ryans and Staffords who haven't proven shit yet.

Honestly with their style of play I think you can put Rivers and Vick in that elite group if we're going to add any non-Super Bowl winners to the list. After that, well... until those QBs prove something, then the teams they lead are almost in the same purgatory that the Chiefs are.

O.city
04-14-2012, 03:08 PM
I wouldn't put Vick up there, as he misses to many games and isn't elite from the pocket.


I would put Stafford up there pretty close to that next tier and I think the next 3 or 4 years he might end up in the upper echelon. Same with Newton.


I don't necessarily think you need a Tom Brady to win SB's. I do however think a guy like Flaaco or Matt Ryan is about the floor of what you need.

Chocolate Hog
04-14-2012, 03:11 PM
Rivers, Stafford, Ryan, Cutler are all franchise QB's too.

You could argue Newton, Bradford, Freeman, and even Flaaco could be franchise QB's.


That's 13 guys then you have guys like Schuab, Dalton, Vick. Half the league so saying it's hard to find a good QB is nothing more than an excuse.

O.city
04-14-2012, 03:16 PM
I think those guys are franchise qb's. I don't think they are necessarily in the upper echelon of guys just yet.


Newton, Bradford and Freeman haven't had enough time to say what exactly they are. Dalton was a game manager last year. His 2011 season was a Cassel like 2010.


I like Schaub alot, but again, he hasn't really won anything yet.


Like I said, you don't need a Tom Brady to win a SB. I think the absolute worst type of qb play you can have an still have a chance at a SB is Flaaco.


I think Stanzi could absolutely do that.

Don't knwo about Tannehill though.

Epic Fail 007
04-14-2012, 03:21 PM
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.

Hes like rich gannon

SNR
04-14-2012, 03:28 PM
I wouldn't put Vick up there, as he misses to many games and isn't elite from the pocket.


I would put Stafford up there pretty close to that next tier and I think the next 3 or 4 years he might end up in the upper echelon. Same with Newton.


I don't necessarily think you need a Tom Brady to win SB's. I do however think a guy like Flaaco or Matt Ryan is about the floor of what you need.Vick has turned his game into one of a pocket passer who can do it all. But the injury argument is noted.

And yes, while it's true that we don't need one of those top six guys to get the job done on this particular Chiefs team, I think in five or six years Derrick Johnson and Eric Winston will be at the very end of their careers, Charles will be completely spent, some of our current franchise players won't get re-signed (even a guy like Tamba Hali who will also be oldish), and career-ending injuries can happen to any person in any game at any time. Yes, part of the system means drafting well to replace the guys who move on, but if you have that elite QB the roster turnover doesn't matter one bit. Which is why going 2-14 should never be viewed as a failure if you're a team without its great QB.

Chocolate Hog
04-14-2012, 03:30 PM
I think those guys are franchise qb's. I don't think they are necessarily in the upper echelon of guys just yet.


Newton, Bradford and Freeman haven't had enough time to say what exactly they are. Dalton was a game manager last year. His 2011 season was a Cassel like 2010.


I like Schaub alot, but again, he hasn't really won anything yet.


Like I said, you don't need a Tom Brady to win a SB. I think the absolute worst type of qb play you can have an still have a chance at a SB is Flaaco.


I think Stanzi could absolutely do that.

Don't knwo about Tannehill though.


All are younger and have more upside than Cassel. Saying that Pioli couldn't find a QB is just an excuse.

BigMeatballDave
04-14-2012, 03:30 PM
Vick is not Elite.

O.city
04-14-2012, 04:25 PM
All are younger and have more upside than Cassel. Saying that Pioli couldn't find a QB is just an excuse.

I'm not gonna argue that one. It's true.



I was just stating that you can't just wish for a Brady and have him fall into your laps. You gotta either go get him, or take the smallest of small chances that he falls into your lap. Like the Eagles and Vick.


I think Flacco is the perfect example of what we need. At the absolute worst. I think Stanzi has a chance to do that, even be better.


I don't know about Tannehill, I'm not very familiar with him.

keg in kc
04-14-2012, 05:03 PM
Stanzi's a 5th round pick. He's not even part of the discussion. The idea of him turning into anything is pure fantasy at this point. It's hoping the Tom Brady lightning bolt strikes.

milkman
04-14-2012, 05:04 PM
I wholeheartedly agree.

We had this discussion months ago about the nature of a franchise QB and how one defines it. If we're only talking about active QBs who have won Super Bowls (and who still have the skills to potentially get the job done), then you have six names, which is very close to your guess of five.

Brady
Rodgers
Manning
Manning
Roethlisberger
Brees

The thing about this is after that list of six the talent drop off is pretty dramatic. You have guys like Philip Rivers and Michael Vick who have fairly decent playoff records, excellent stats, and a moxi on the field that closely resembles the Big Six. After that is a huge soup of game managers on teams with fantastic defenses, and a bunch of Ryans and Staffords who haven't proven shit yet.

Honestly with their style of play I think you can put Rivers and Vick in that elite group if we're going to add any non-Super Bowl winners to the list. After that, well... until those QBs prove something, then the teams they lead are almost in the same purgatory that the Chiefs are.

Rivers, from a physical standpoint, is as talented as anyone, and he showed some toughness in the playoffs a few years ago.

But he lacks something mentally.

He has a propensity to come up small in big moments.

And Vick had one season in which he looked like a QB, half a season, really.

I'd take either guy over Cassel certainly, but I have serious doubts about the ability lead a team to the SB, and if you have that kind of guy, regardless of talent, you are just spinning your wheels.

scho63
04-14-2012, 09:58 PM
ESPN says Miami is set to get Tannehill with whatever it takes. Makes sense

Chocolate Hog
04-14-2012, 10:12 PM
ESPN says Miami is set to get Tannehill with whatever it takes. Makes sense

Harbaugh, Fisher, Manning, etc.

Coogs
04-14-2012, 10:21 PM
ESPN says Miami is set to get Tannehill with whatever it takes. Makes sense

I forget all the details on what we are supposed to do with Tannehill based off of what Miami does. I recall that we are not supposed to draft him if Miami doesn't, because of the Mike Sherman connection. But what were we supposed to do with Tannehill if Miami does draft him? :hmmm:

Frankie
04-15-2012, 11:29 AM
ESPN says Miami is set to get Tannehill with whatever it takes. Makes sense

IMO,

Clevelan/Tannehill --> 1%

Miami/Tannehill --> 50%

Miami has other needs for which studs are available. This could be all part of the usual smoke screening game that goes on before draft.

rico
04-15-2012, 02:51 PM
I forget all the details on what we are supposed to do with Tannehill based off of what Miami does. I recall that we are not supposed to draft him if Miami doesn't, because of the Mike Sherman connection. But what were we supposed to do with Tannehill if Miami does draft him? :hmmm:

We are supposed to laugh at Miami.

chiefzilla1501
04-15-2012, 03:03 PM
I wholeheartedly agree.

We had this discussion months ago about the nature of a franchise QB and how one defines it. If we're only talking about active QBs who have won Super Bowls (and who still have the skills to potentially get the job done), then you have six names, which is very close to your guess of five.

Brady
Rodgers
Manning
Manning
Roethlisberger
Brees

The thing about this is after that list of six the talent drop off is pretty dramatic. You have guys like Philip Rivers and Michael Vick who have fairly decent playoff records, excellent stats, and a moxi on the field that closely resembles the Big Six. After that is a huge soup of game managers on teams with fantastic defenses, and a bunch of Ryans and Staffords who haven't proven shit yet.

Honestly with their style of play I think you can put Rivers and Vick in that elite group if we're going to add any non-Super Bowl winners to the list. After that, well... until those QBs prove something, then the teams they lead are almost in the same purgatory that the Chiefs are.

I agree. I've complained a lot that Pioli hasn't even tried to bring in QB talent. But people exaggerate how many game-changing QBs there are.

There are 6 QBs, that you mentioned above, who are Super Bowl QBs who can carry a team to the Super Bowl even if they don't have elite talent around them. Eli, Peyton, Brady, Brees, Big Ben. In every generation, there are usually 5 (you'd expect that when Peyton and Brady are on the downward spiral, you can swap in a QB or two like Cam Newton).

That's why I distinguish between elite QBs and franchise QBs. It's one of the reasons I wasn't big on trading the moon for someone like RGIII. Because finding an elite QB is really, really hard. And if you don'[t have an elite QB, you have to build an elite team to surround that QB. 5 out of 32 is a small number. It's even smaller when only 5 of these guys emerge over 10 years of drafts.

Von Dumbass
04-16-2012, 06:12 AM
4. In the unlikely event Tannehill makes it out of the top 10, I believe he'll be the 11th overall pick. That spot belongs to the Chiefs. I don't see the Chiefs taking Tannehill. I see Kansas City taking the best offer for the pick, and there will certainly be offers for that pick if Tannehill slips. Still, the most likely scenarios are Tannehill to Cleveland at four or Miami at eight. But why 11? Because teams around the league know how much Seattle loves Tannehill. And you can write this down: If Tannehill were to be there at 12, Seattle would take him, even though the Seahawks just paid medium dollar for Matt Flynn in free agency. That's how much Seattle loves him. "At Tannehill's workout,'' one source told me, "[coach] Pete Carroll was giggling like a schoolgirl watching him throw. His attitude was like, 'What are we even doing here? He'll never be there for us.' ''

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/04/16/countdown/index.html?eref=twitter_feed

Easy 6
04-16-2012, 06:27 AM
Well i, for one, simply cannot understand how you guys can talk football at a time like this!... havent you heard or seen? 'Pippa' has been photographed with a gun wielding psycho in Paris... ITS GOING TO ROCK THE WORLD TO ITS FOUNDATIONS!!1

I'm calling in sick today, theres just no way i can concentrate on work right now... i'm all shook up.

evolve27
04-16-2012, 07:32 AM
Well i, for one, simply cannot understand how you guys can talk football at a time like this!... havent you heard or seen? 'Pippa' has been photographed with a gun wielding psycho in Paris... ITS GOING TO ROCK THE WORLD TO ITS FOUNDATIONS!!1

I'm calling in sick today, theres just no way i can concentrate on work right now... i'm all shook up.

You okay Scott? Haha

Setsuna
04-16-2012, 08:35 AM
Draft is in a week and a half! Let's GO!

Dr. Gigglepants
04-16-2012, 10:10 AM
I agree. I've complained a lot that Pioli hasn't even tried to bring in QB talent. But people exaggerate how many game-changing QBs there are.

There are 6 QBs, that you mentioned above, who are Super Bowl QBs who can carry a team to the Super Bowl even if they don't have elite talent around them. Eli, Peyton, Brady, Brees, Big Ben. In every generation, there are usually 5 (you'd expect that when Peyton and Brady are on the downward spiral, you can swap in a QB or two like Cam Newton).

That's why I distinguish between elite QBs and franchise QBs. It's one of the reasons I wasn't big on trading the moon for someone like RGIII. Because finding an elite QB is really, really hard. And if you don'[t have an elite QB, you have to build an elite team to surround that QB. 5 out of 32 is a small number. It's even smaller when only 5 of these guys emerge over 10 years of drafts.

What does it mean that we were a short hair away from a Flacco/Smith SB last year? We almost had a SB with 2 non elite, game manager type QBs. Instead, we got a matchup of 2 of the elites, by that much. I will watch SF closely this year, they seem to be the team on the verge, with the addition of Moss on offense I think they can get over the hump this year. However, if they come close and fall short again in the playoffs and we end up with another elite QB matchup in the SB, the rest of the league may as well just forfeit until those 6 guys retire. I don't think Tannehill is going to be in that club, no thanks, ill take my chances building an elite team and hoping the bad break goes against the team with the elite QB in the playoffs and we get there before drafting a project qb with the 11th pick.
Posted via Mobile Device

Coogs
04-16-2012, 10:50 AM
What does it mean that we were a short hair away from a Flacco/Smith SB last year? We almost had a SB with 2 non elite, game manager type QBs. Instead, we got a matchup of 2 of the elites, by that much. I will watch SF closely this year, they seem to be the team on the verge, with the addition of Moss on offense I think they can get over the hump this year. However, if they come close and fall short again in the playoffs and we end up with another elite QB matchup in the SB, the rest of the league may as well just forfeit until those 6 guys retire. I don't think Tannehill is going to be in that club, no thanks, ill take my chances building an elite team and hoping the bad break goes against the team with the elite QB in the playoffs and we get there before drafting a project qb with the 11th pick.
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm not even saying Smith is elite, but don't forget Smith had enough goods to overcome Brees... twice... late in the game. Smith led the 49ers down to the lead roughly right at the 2:00 mark. Brees... as an elite QB will do... had plenty enough time to answer. Smith... with a minute and a half left got the job done.

Cassel's track record of 3-16 when relying on the pass indicates we ain't doing that.

Dr. Gigglepants
04-16-2012, 11:03 AM
I'm not even saying Smith is elite, but don't forget Smith had enough goods to overcome Brees... twice... late in the game. Smith led the 49ers down to the lead roughly right at the 2:00 mark. Brees... as an elite QB will do... had plenty enough time to answer. Smith... with a minute and a half left got the job done.

Cassel's track record of 3-16 when relying on the pass indicates we ain't doing that.

He did get past one of the elites (who turned it over 5 or 6 times that game), but didn't have enough to beat 2 elites. Is Tannehill going to beat 2 elites to get us there, people are already saying they'd be happy with him if he was Alex Smith, Hell Matt Cassel is prettty much Alex Smith. How does Tannehill make us better next year or the year after? Hate to say it, but our window is only open so long, I wonder if its just futile for us at this point.
Posted via Mobile Device

Coogs
04-16-2012, 11:08 AM
He did get past one of the elites (who turned it over 5 or 6 times that game), but didn't have enough to beat 2 elites. Is Tannehill going to beat 2 elites to get us there, people are already saying they'd be happy with him if he was Alex Smith, Hell Matt Cassel is prettty much Alex Smith. How does Tannehill make us better next year or the year after? Hate to say it, but our window is only open so long, I wonder if its just futile for us at this point.
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm not saying Tannehill is the answer. To be honest, I don't know much about him at all. But I do know Cassel is not the answer.

Dr. Gigglepants
04-16-2012, 11:20 AM
I'm not saying Tannehill is the answer. To be honest, I don't know much about him at all. But I do know Cassel is not the answer.

I don't think he's THE answer, as in will carry us, but we can win with him. Not sure if he'll win us 2 or 3 playoff games, but if we go 2010 style and have the leagues best running game, he keeps his INTs low again, and our defense plays lights out, I don't see how we don't win the division this year. Then we end up in another playoff game, at home against another game manager type qb, with more experience in that situation and I think our chances of winning are at least ok.

I think we're a NT or another good passrusher away from being scary to play, I'd rather go somewhere else with the pick.
Posted via Mobile Device

evolve27
04-21-2012, 08:46 PM
I won't be able to sleep for 2 days leading up to the draft in the hopes that we get Tannehill. OK maybe 3 days? I think I'm going to be losing track of time.

milkman
04-21-2012, 08:55 PM
He did get past one of the elites (who turned it over 5 or 6 times that game), but didn't have enough to beat 2 elites. Is Tannehill going to beat 2 elites to get us there, people are already saying they'd be happy with him if he was Alex Smith, Hell Matt Cassel is prettty much Alex Smith. How does Tannehill make us better next year or the year after? Hate to say it, but our window is only open so long, I wonder if its just futile for us at this point.
Posted via Mobile Device

No, Matt Cassel is not pretty much Alex Smith.

Neither have the intangibles that are part of a great QBs mental makeup, but Alex Smith is far more talented physically than Cassel.

chiefzilla1501
04-22-2012, 07:07 AM
What does it mean that we were a short hair away from a Flacco/Smith SB last year? We almost had a SB with 2 non elite, game manager type QBs. Instead, we got a matchup of 2 of the elites, by that much. I will watch SF closely this year, they seem to be the team on the verge, with the addition of Moss on offense I think they can get over the hump this year. However, if they come close and fall short again in the playoffs and we end up with another elite QB matchup in the SB, the rest of the league may as well just forfeit until those 6 guys retire. I don't think Tannehill is going to be in that club, no thanks, ill take my chances building an elite team and hoping the bad break goes against the team with the elite QB in the playoffs and we get there before drafting a project qb with the 11th pick.
Posted via Mobile Device

What does it also say that the Ravens have been a QB away from probably being a dominant team for many years now? I don't think the idea that a guy can project to be Flacco or Alex Smith is any reason to draft a guy. If you feel pretty comfortable that the guy has the upside to become Tom Brady but becomes Joe Flacco, that's fine. On the other hand, it also shows that to get to the next level with an average QB, you have to have a tremendous supporting cast.

It says that the Chiefs shouldn't just settle on a QB just because he's there. If they truly feel Tannehill has potential to be a terrific QB, then draft him. But drafting a guy at #11 because he's better than the shitty QB on your roster... not the way to go.

chiefzilla1501
04-22-2012, 07:12 AM
Question, and it's because I can't find the answer anywhere online...

How big a deal is the "small hands" problem? I know it makes it easier to fumble. I'm wondering if that makes it harder to play in the elements. I'd have to imagine when the ball gets slippery, a QB with small hands is going to have more trouble slinging the ball. Tannehill hasn't had much change to play in the elements.

Here's an interesting story about Michael Vick. Has extremely small hands (8 1/2 inches, which is well below the 9 1/2 inch standard for pro QBs... Tannehill's are 9 inches).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031611792638004.html
Michael Vick is a very poor cold weather QB. Could hand size have anything to do with that?

Ebolapox
04-22-2012, 10:17 AM
hand size is usually nothing more than a fumbling issue. remember dave krieg? he had tiny hands (heh heh, cue up the burger king tiny hands commercial) and, at one point, was the all-time leader in fumbles.

whoman69
04-22-2012, 10:39 AM
hand size is usually nothing more than a fumbling issue. remember dave krieg? he had tiny hands (heh heh, cue up the burger king tiny hands commercial) and, at one point, was the all-time leader in fumbles.

He's also the all time leader in yards lost being sacked. I don't know how a guy making so many negative plays was ever considered one of the best QBs in football.

-King-
08-11-2012, 01:58 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/27UZogyifZU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Per Dave Hyde: "Here's how comfortable Ryan Tannehill is with this offense and himself: When Tampa Bay showed a blitz and he had a run called, he immediately checked out to a short pass at the line and set up the protection. Joe Philbin said it turned a 3 or 4 yard loss into a 5 or 6 yard gain."

Frankie
08-11-2012, 04:05 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/27UZogyifZU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Just highlights but he looks like a real NFL QB, doesn't he?

SNR
08-11-2012, 04:11 PM
Tannehill > Poe

Setsuna
08-11-2012, 04:14 PM
Tannehill > Poe

:facepalm: traitor.

SNR
08-11-2012, 04:16 PM
:facepalm: traitor.

What are you talking about? I wanted to draft Tannehill. I also wanted this team to stay way the fuck away from Poe

MIAdragon
08-11-2012, 04:30 PM
Just highlights but he looks like a real NFL QB, doesn't he?

Im sure I could throw together 3 throws from Croyle that you could say the same about.....

Nightfyre
08-11-2012, 05:14 PM
What are you talking about? I wanted to draft Tannehill. I also wanted this team to stay way the **** away from Poe

:deevee: me too! He still looks like a rookie in those plays, though. Staring down his target, etc.

rico
08-11-2012, 07:06 PM
I'm still glad we didn't draft him for 2 reasons; 1.) he seemed to be the randomly ordained 3rd QB pick when Barkley confirmed he would be going back to USC next year and 2.) I think the upcoming QB class is much better, deeper.... we can get someone better than him with a much lower pick than #8 next year....

mr. tegu
08-11-2012, 08:00 PM
Tannehill will not succeed.

He is nothing but a beacon of false hope for a downtrodden franchise who will be set back for at least a few years as they wait for him to develop because he was drafted in the first round which apparently automatically makes him good.

rico
08-11-2012, 08:24 PM
Tannehill will not succeed.

He is nothing but a beacon of false hope for a downtrodden franchise who will be set back for at least a few years as they wait for him to develop because he was drafted in the first round which apparently automatically makes him good.

I agree. I was never a Tannehill advocate either. I still don't know why he was touted to begin with.

2013 draft QB's are legit.

Ebolapox
08-11-2012, 08:56 PM
the next year's QB class is ALWAYS better than this year's. as such, we will literally NEVER draft a first round QB ever again.

rico
08-11-2012, 09:01 PM
the next year's QB class is ALWAYS better than this year's. as such, we will literally NEVER draft a first round QB ever again.

Yeah, but this year's class really is better. :)

BigMeatballDave
08-11-2012, 09:35 PM
Cassel will not succeed.

He is nothing but a beacon of false hope for a downtrodden franchise who will be set back for at least a few years as they wait for him to develop because he was traded for a 2nd round which apparently automatically makes him good.

:)

SNR
08-11-2012, 09:39 PM
Yeah, but this year's class really is better. :)

2012's is going to be off the freakin hook dude. Andrew Luck, Nick Foles, Matt Barkley, Landry Jones, and Ryan Lindley are all QBs worthy of at least a top 15 selection. 1999 and 1983 will look like piddle shit. THIS is the year of the QB!

Tombstone RJ
08-11-2012, 10:31 PM
2012's is going to be off the freakin hook dude. Andrew Luck, Nick Foles, Matt Barkley, Landry Jones, and Ryan Lindley are all QBs worthy of at least a top 15 selection. 1999 and 1983 will look like piddle shit. THIS is the year of the QB!

Don't forget Osweiler!

SNR
08-11-2012, 10:37 PM
Don't forget Osweiler!

Assweiler wasn't being talked about in the awesome elite QBs category at the beginning of the 2011 college football season.

Also, he sucks shit.

Nightfyre
08-11-2012, 10:38 PM
Osweiler has been talked about as a legit nfl prospect since high school, dumbass.

SNR
08-11-2012, 10:47 PM
Osweiler has been talked about as a legit nfl prospect since high school, dumbass.

And last year he was an underclassman. Nobody at the beginning of 2011 thought he would be in the draft, let alone that the 2012 draft class would be so fucking shitty that he would be considered the 5th best QB of the class.

Are u mad because I called your Bowe opinion retarded? It IS pretty stupid. Know what Bowe's teammates are going to say to him when he comes back?

"Glad to have you back, Dwayne".

Sure, they'll give him some ribbing and throw some jokes at him, but his teammates really don't give a shit if he's there or not for training camp.

Frankie
08-11-2012, 11:17 PM
I'm still glad we didn't draft him for 2 reasons; 1.) he seemed to be the randomly ordained 3rd QB pick when Barkley confirmed he would be going back to USC next year and 2.) I think the upcoming QB class is much better, deeper.... we can get someone better than him with a much lower pick than #8 next year....

TYLER BRAY!

Tannehill will not succeed.

He is nothing but a beacon of false hope for a downtrodden franchise who will be set back for at least a few years as they wait for him to develop because he was drafted in the first round which apparently automatically makes him good.

How much for that Crystal Ball?

Nightfyre
08-11-2012, 11:19 PM
Bray is a gunslinger, but his recent run of destruction of property and eviction is a bit of a red-flag. Alcohol related incidents and whatnot. Wilson has to be my top prospect at this juncture.

Frankie
08-11-2012, 11:23 PM
Bray is a gunslinger, but his recent run of destruction of property and eviction is a bit of a red-flag. Alcohol related incidents and whatnot. Wilson has to be my top prospect at this juncture.

I didn't know that. Indeed a red flag if true..

Frankie
08-11-2012, 11:30 PM
It's just I like the name Tyler as a QB first name (which is strange after our Palko experience). And when I close my eyes and try to imagine a Chiefs broadcast the sound of "Bray drops back...." is better than "Wilson drops back...."

OK,... that's it,... Tyler Bray is my Chiefs QB no matter red flags be damned!

;) :D

rico
08-11-2012, 11:35 PM
It's just I like the name Tyler as a QB first name (which is strange after our Palko experience). And when I close my eyes and try to imagine a Chiefs broadcast the sound of "Bray drops back...." is better than "Wilson drops back...."

OK,... that's it,... Tyler Bray is my Chiefs QB no matter red flags be damned!

;) :D

My 2 favorites are Tyler Bray and Geno Smith.

aturnis
08-11-2012, 11:43 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/27UZogyifZU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The offense is his college offense, he should be comfortable in it...

SNR
08-11-2012, 11:45 PM
My 2 favorites are Tyler Bray and Geno Smith.

Smith will be the top QB in next year's draft. That's my feeling, anyway.

He's going to tear shit up in the Big XII