Quote:
Originally Posted by milkman
And yet, every QB we have any shot at drafting is not worth the risk to almost everyone on this forum.
|
It depends on how you define risk.
Is "risk" talking about desperately settling for a QB because he's safe, even if he doesn't have tremendous upside? To me, risk is gambling to trade up aggressively for the right QB--I think the Chiefs should have tried and I'm disappointed that they didn't, but in the end, the compensation was WAY too high if the Chiefs wanted to match. [correction: I'm talking about RGIII here, not Tannehill] To me, risk is gambling on a QB with tremendous skill sets that lead you to believe he could be a franchise QB, even if he has some major flaw in the game that gives him major downside risk.
Tannehill doesn't feel that way whatsoever. People want to say we'd be taking a chance on a QB, but deep inside, we know he feels more safe than risky. Nobody really think he's going to suck. But we think there's a good likelihood he'll be better than Cassel. Yet, there doesn't seem to be many people here that have the thought in the back of his mind that this kid has a chance to be something special. More like the kid has a good chance of not sucking.