Poll

35 votes were received.
All visitors can vote.

Assuming we can, should we

	Draft Tannehill at number 8
	Draft another position at no. 8 but then trade up to get Weeden before some other team drafts him

---

Just two choices.

1) Should we draft Tannehill at no. 8

2) Should we go another position at no. 8 and then trade up to get Weeden before some other team drafts him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2012 01:58PM by ChyrenB.

I went with "Tannehill at 8" but my preference would be to trade DOWN to get Weeden and use those stockpiled picks to try to address pass rush, RT, secondary, and WR.

That's interesting RJay. I would have thought that given your exact words that would mean you would pick option 2. It was certainly how I wrote it to cover.

I guess it's a difference of perception. You obviously believe that we could get more 2nds and a low first for our number 8.

I'm not sure that would happen.

But since we have the thirds we obtained for Brandon Marshall, we could package those with our 2nd to move up ahead of any potential rival for Weeden in the low 1st round.

We could then use our own 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th round picks (which will be number 8 or 9 at the top of each round) to satisfy the needs you point out PLUS we would have spent our First round number 8 satisfying those same needs.

Trade down, pick up a second and take Tannehill or Weeden, and load up offensively and a with a Safety. Try to sign Mark Anderson

IS otogwe still out there?

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's interesting RJay. I would have thought
> that given your exact words that would mean you
> would pick option 2. It was certainly how I wrote
> it to cover.
>
> I guess it's a difference of perception. You
> obviously believe that we could get more 2nds and
> a low first for our number 8.
>
> I'm not sure that would happen.
>
> But since we have the thirds we obtained for
> Brandon Marshall, we could package those with our
> 2nd to move up ahead of any potential rival for
> Weeden in the low 1st round.
>
> We could then use our own 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th
> round picks (which will be number 8 or 9 at the
> top of each round) to satisfy the needs you point
> out PLUS we would have spent our First round
> number 8 satisfying those same needs.




Honestly, I think both QBs are good prospects and I'd be happy with either. I think that if the team wants Tannehill, I'm comfortable with taking him at 8, and if we want Weeden then I think we'd probably be better off trading down. But yeah, your scenario works, too.

If Mike Sherman says Tannehill is the real deal and wants him? then I don't care if we take him 8th or 16th.

What I wouldn't want is a scenario in which Sherman says 'that's the guy', then Ireland says "not at that price" trades down and someone takes him.


If the guy you want is on the board in the round you want him? Make the pick. The last thing I want is to get screwed out of what we want, have to settle for the athlete that fits that slot on the board, and to read some BS statement about how we wanted a Corner all along and were keeping it quiet.

Okay. My problem is that if Weeden were 21 or 22.

1) Having nearly led his team to a National Championship

2) Having not only the size and arm but the wits

3) Having played QB since before High School....

Why in the world would someone at 8 take Tannehil

1) Who has no such accomplishments

2) Lacks the size

3) Has only recently been shifted to quarterback.

As far as Sherman and the Dolphin management is concerned, I am very concerned that with the failure to get Peyton or Flynn and with the furor over Garrard being signed, that they will try to appease fans like those on this board by going for a HIGH RISK like Tannehill just because his name has been mentioned and he is "trending" (as you kids like to think of it) in this Post Manning-Flynn environment.

Stick with Weeden. Have your cake and eat it too.

No doubt Weeden would have been talked about in the same breath as Luck and RGIII but for his age.

I agree, but if Sherman and Philbin think Tannehill is better suited to their offense, I will trust them.

I heard that if it weren't for Weeden's age, he'd be the 2nd ranked QB in this draft.

tannehill was a top qb in high school, it's not like he was a WR his whole career and just switched

808phan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard that if it weren't for Weeden's age, he'd
> be the 2nd ranked QB in this draft.


He's a very good passer and his arm is outstanding. The best out of all the top prospects in the draft. Luck and RG3 are both very good athletes but they don't have the howitzer Weeden does. He's a former baseball player (pitcher I think) and he can gun that thing.

RJay, RG3 can throw the ball about 80 yards.

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

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

I mean velocity, not distance. Scouts who have actually timed their 'fastballs' so to speak. Tannehill and RG3 can both get about the same amount of mustard on the ball from the breakdown I saw and Weeden's way out ahead of them.

Don't get me wrong, RG3 is an outstanding athlete and I think he will be a very good pro, but if you're looking at Weeden, Tannehill, RG3, even Luck, and you want a frozen rope, Weeden's your guy.

It's the other stuff that makes him the #4 or 5 prospect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2012 07:22PM by (R/J)ay.

Weedon is the steal of the draft. The fact that he hasn't taken 6 years of NFL pounding means that his age shouldn't be a factor. Barring serious injuries and a crummy offensive line, a great QB can still play well in his late 30s. If Weedon becomes a great one and stays healthy, then he should still be good to go when he's 40.

I wonder if the FO plan all the time was to get either of these two, and the other FO hype was to hide it.

Might be giving them too m,uch credit, but might not.

Phinjim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if the FO plan all the time was to get
> either of these two, and the other FO hype was to
> hide it.
>
> Might be giving them too m,uch credit, but might
> not.


I think the F/O plan all along was to, see if Manning wanted to come here (he didn't), see if Flynn would accept a contract equal to his scouting report from Philbin (he didn't), kick the tires on Alex Smith once he became available (neither side was ever really serious), and if all those options fell through, then pursue 2 decent 1st rnd QB options in the draft.

You guys calling for Tannehill and Weeden have to be hired out by the Phins to blow this stuff out here as a smokescreen. Kirk Cousins is the qb we will draft in round 2.

We could take a pass rusher at 8, and trade our 2d and 2 3ds to move into the late first to take Weedon. Would folks be on board with that?

Given the hole at WR I think we need our 2d and 3ds to take a few WRs (or trade up to get one) so I don't think I would be. Weedon will go in the 1st I am sure of it.

All I know is we better get one of them if we're serious about 'upgrading' the QB position. If we screw around trying to trade down and save money and miss them both...

1 -De Castro
2 -Cousins

Fix the damn problem at R/G. If we had made Winston our top target in free agency and drafted DeCastro we would have an awesome line. That's where it all begins. We still have a chance to get it half right.

mizzou15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1 -De Castro
> 2 -Cousins
>
> Fix the damn problem at R/G. If we had made
> Winston our top target in free agency and drafted
> DeCastro we would have an awesome line. That's
> where it all begins. We still have a chance to get
> it half right.

In the last 8 years we have used 3 first round picks including a #1 over all on O-linemen. We are a combined 51-77 during that time and excluding the year Pennington managed to stay healthy have not seen the playoffs OR been ranked above the bottom 3rd of the NFL in offense. WE NEED A QB!

If there is a better Olineman than a qb you sure as hell better grab him. Pat White, Henne, Beck are you not sick of it yet some folks want more, Flynn, Tannehill. Grabbing anyone does not make a qb. Maybe if we had a solid oline maybe we would draw guys like Manning dure free agency.

mizzou15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there is a better Olineman than a qb you sure
> as hell better grab him. Pat White, Henne, Beck
> are you not sick of it yet some folks want more,
> Flynn, Tannehill. Grabbing anyone does not make a
> qb. Maybe if we had a solid oline maybe we would
> draw guys like Manning dure free agency.

Don't disagree about Manning or that just grabbing anyone doesn't make a QB. But it looks like there are gonna be two consensus first round QB picks available at our turn WE HAVE TO TRY. Parcells and project BIG failed! WE NEED A QB. P.S. I'm also sick of retreads and projects.

Tannehill stares down his receivers and has thrown some interceptions in the clutch, but I think those are both things that he can overcome with more time playing QB in a pro offense.

Like I said, I'd be happy with either of these guys.

One time, I ran over two dogs that were humping on the side of the road.

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

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

(R/J)ay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Incidentally for anyone who is a Nick Foles fans,
> he sucked and blew at his Pro Day, I'm told.


"I didn't think that was physically possible" (Bart Simpson)

we drafted a 28 year old before remember... his name was john beck, how did he work out? No thanks, a guy like weeden is already on our team his name is moore. I dont see weeden being better then a 1 many 2 time probowler if he is lucky. That is his ceiling, best case senerio. I want a guy that has a shot or in the discussion of probowler every year. I say draft an unknown guy named chandler harnish out of northern illinois in the 6th, given the shot he is probowler material and much better than what we have on our roster or wait until next year...

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (R/J)ay Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Incidentally for anyone who is a Nick Foles
> fans,
> > he sucked and blew at his Pro Day, I'm told.
>
>
> "I didn't think that was physically possible"
> (Bart Simpson)


lol, I thought of Bart as well when I first read that.