Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
You and Boss have been touting that he can be special but that's not everybody's sentiment. Most people are endorsing Tannehill because we need to take a chance on a first round QB and because he's not Cassel. No mention of whether he can be special. It's not risk averse if there are some, like myself, who want to be aggressive about getting a QB... only if it's the right QB. To me, it's risk averse that so many people want to take a QB simply because he's there, not because they're excited about him.
And that's why I'm okay with the Poe pick. That's a risky pick if there ever was one. I think most people agree that this is a pure boom/bust pick. He's probably going to either play extremely well or he's going to crash really badly. The Tannehill pick... yes, my personal opinion that Tannehill in relation to NFL QBs has an average skill set --his floor isn't bad, but his ceiling isn't impressive. Just a personal opinion. I'm not risk averse. I'm picky.
Either way, talking can's insistence that Poe was a needs based pick and not one made on a risky dare... just silly. Claiming those who support the Poe pick because it was risky are Pioli shills, then saying those who don't support risky moves for QBs are Pioli shills... contradictory.
|
poe was absolutely a need pick....jesus christ, they don't draft him otherwise
but that fact doesn't even matter
we can take risks....for a NT...and people celebrate and rationalize it
but we can't takes risks....for a QB that is 10000000000000x more important than NT
and pioli is a genious for both, amazingly
i don't ever want to hear the word 'risky' coming from this board's sad ass true fans as a pejorative after we just drafted a guy who produced nothing in college...nothing
don't want to hear that QB X is 'risky' because he only played 2 years, or is only awesome and not super awesome, or is 'raw'...lol....Poe is less developed, less accomplished, less coached, more raw than anyone we've ever hoped to draft at QB...by a god damn mile