Poll

30 votes were received.
All visitors can vote.

Who do you want?

	Alex Smith
	Tim Tebow
	David Garrard
	Draft Tannehill
	Draft Weeden
	Start Moore plus get one of the above
	Be Satisfied with Moore and Chill

---

With Flynn gone to Seattle (Whew) and Peyton seeming gone to Denver (Bigger Whew!), here's what's rumored as left.

Choose an option and discuss.

not alex smith, not david gerrard, not tannehill at 8 and certainly not in a trade up, not any QB at 8. so what's left? tannehill or weedon after a trade down, and just keep moore

we suck.

how about brett farve?

I agree with start Moore and dont reach for somebody just because you have not been able to sign your first 3 or 4 options... That doesnt make the 5th choice the right answer, just the 5th option..
If we draft a Qb 8th this year I will be pissed...

That doesnt make the 5th choice the right answer, just the 5th option..
---Well said, Crowder.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That doesnt make the 5th choice the right answer,
> just the 5th option..
> ---Well said, Crowder.

The blue light special approach we've been using for the last 11 years sure as heck ain't working. WHY is everyone so against rolling the dice on a first round QB?? Fiedler, Feeley, Harrington, Ferrote, Lemon, Greise, Greene, Culpepper, Pennington, Henne, HOW could it be any worse!? Keep Moore and take a chance on Tannehill.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2012 05:10PM by KB.

KB

Answer to your question "WHY is everyone so against rolling the dice on a first round QB?? Fiedler, Feeley, Harrington, Ferrote, Lemon, Greise, Greene, Culpepper, Pennington, Henne, HOW could it be any worse!? Keep Moore and take a chance on Tannehill"

Because Tannehill will probably TURN OUT TO BE "Fiedler, Feeley, Harrington, Ferrote, Lemon, Greise, Greene, Culpepper, Pennington, Henne."

Just because we pick a player IN THE DRAFT, it doesn't mean that they won't TURN OUT TO BE Fiedler, Feeley, Harrington, Ferrote, Lemon, Greise, Greene, Culpepper, Pennington, Henne.

Because Fiedler, Feeley, Harrington, Ferrote, Lemon, Greise, Greene, Culpepper, Pennington, Henne WERE ALL ONCE DRAFTED THEMSELVES!

I say chill with Moore or Gerrard because I know it will get us Barkley.

---------------------

Follow me on Twitter @aqua_and_orange

I say chill with Moore or Gerrard because I know it will get us Barkley.

---------------------

Follow me on Twitter @aqua_and_orange

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KB
>
> Answer to your question "WHY is everyone so
> against rolling the dice on a first round QB??
> Fiedler, Feeley, Harrington, Ferrote, Lemon,
> Greise, Greene, Culpepper, Pennington, Henne, HOW
> could it be any worse!? Keep Moore and take a
> chance on Tannehill"
>
> Because Tannehill will probably TURN OUT TO BE
> "Fiedler, Feeley, Harrington, Ferrote, Lemon,
> Greise, Greene, Culpepper, Pennington, Henne."
>
> Just because we pick a player IN THE DRAFT, it
> doesn't mean that they won't TURN OUT TO BE
> Fiedler, Feeley, Harrington, Ferrote, Lemon,
> Greise, Greene, Culpepper, Pennington, Henne.
>
> Because Fiedler, Feeley, Harrington, Ferrote,
> Lemon, Greise, Greene, Culpepper, Pennington,
> Henne WERE ALL ONCE DRAFTED THEMSELVES!

Well of course, almost EVERY player was drafted and EVERY pick is a gamble. No risk, no reward. What is your suggestion? Keep drafting linemen and DB's and keep plugging in old, injured re-treads, castoffs and 'projects'? That's what we've been doing FOR 10 YEARS! It doesn't work.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2012 04:30PM by KB.

I suggest that when you have a Matt Moore, who somewhat turned a disaster season around, you try to get an RGIII or a Luck.

When you can't, (as we can't now), you get the best player available in ANOTHER position of need in the first round.

Now, in this particular year, you have a UNIQUE opportunity by the name of Weeden. Were Weeden 21 years old, the top three draft choices would be Luck, RGIII, and Weeden.

Weeden has fallen to the bottom of the 1st round ONLY BECAUSE OF HIS AGE.

Tannehill, on the other hand, is a wide receiver playing quarterback.

So you have your cake and eat it too!

You get your oLINE or WR or Defensive pass rusher at no. 8, and you package your thirds and your own 2nd to move up to get Weeden.

And if you don't like that because you think Weeden is Fiedler, etc., then why don't you think that Tannehill is one that you are using a high first round draft choice for.

Your Way...you are completely gambling.

My way, we have our cake and eat it too.

No one is saying, "Just go with Moore and Garrard."

But we do have to rely on Moore to the extent that, as you say, ANY pick is a gamble, including Weeden.

I and many people on this board think that Tannehill is just too great a gamble.

He is so great a gamble that many think that we would be doing the same Fiedler, Brian Griese, etc. bit only he is Fiedler as a draft choice.

Great poll question anyway. Weeden versus Tannehill.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suggest that when you have a Matt Moore, who
> somewhat turned a disaster season around, you try
> to get an RGIII or a Luck.
>
> When you can't, (as we can't now), you get the
> best player available in ANOTHER position of need
> in the first round.
>
> Now, in this particular year, you have a UNIQUE
> opportunity by the name of Weeden. Were Weeden 21
> years old, the top three draft choices would be
> Luck, RGIII, and Weeden.
>
> Weeden has fallen to the bottom of the 1st round
> ONLY BECAUSE OF HIS AGE.
>
> Tannehill, on the other hand, is a wide receiver
> playing quarterback.
>
> So you have your cake and eat it too!
>
> You get your oLINE or WR or Defensive pass rusher
> at no. 8, and you package your thirds and your own
> 2nd to move up to get Weeden.
>
> And if you don't like that because you think
> Weeden is Fiedler, etc., then why don't you think
> that Tannehill is one that you are using a high
> first round draft choice for.
>
> Your Way...you are completely gambling.
>
> My way, we have our cake and eat it too.
>
> No one is saying, "Just go with Moore and
> Garrard."
>
> But we do have to rely on Moore to the extent
> that, as you say, ANY pick is a gamble, including
> Weeden.
>
> I and many people on this board think that
> Tannehill is just too great a gamble.
>
> He is so great a gamble that many think that we
> would be doing the same Fiedler, Brian Griese,
> etc. bit only he is Fiedler as a draft choice.
>
> Great poll question anyway. Weeden versus
> Tannehill.

I agree that Moore looked like a competent NFL QB, something we haven't seen lately. But I saw him in Charlotte. He looks good vs average competition he looks BAD against better defenses, this was seen to some degree last year.

I wasn't saying i'm sold out on Tannehill, I would not be disappointed with Weeden either. As you say the consensus is he's probably a low first round pick. I just want us to be prepared to use # 8 to get one of them! Three first round linemen will do us no good with one of our blue light specials behind center.