Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
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. 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.
|
That all has the sound of pure utter bullshit to me.
But then that's how all your bullshit arguments ever are.
I've said a number of times that I like Tannehill's upside more than I like Barkley's.
I think the kid has the tools to be special, from arm strength, to athletic ability, to intelligenc.
You just keep making long winded bullshit arguments, because you're trying bait everyone into thinking just like you.
You're a bullshit artist.