delete double post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2012 02:39PM by ChyrenB.

Jonathan Twilley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob,
>
> First off, I am not so certain that Barkley is a
> better prospect than Tannehill, but let's say that
> he is and the Dolphins prefer to wait another year
> to select him. In that case, you run the risk,
> although slight, that he has a major injury.
> Furthermore, if Barkley is good as you suspect,
> then he will go early and, as evidenced this year,
> it will cost a king's ransome to go up and get
> him. Even if the Dolphins tanked the season, it
> would have been yet another year without a future
> quarterback prospect and one that would further
> depleat the fan base and ticket and merchandise
> sales.
>
> Therefore if Sherman believes Tannehill can be a
> franchise quarterback then I say pick him at 8.


No one considered Tannehill worthy of a first round, or even second round draft choice when the first mock draft came out. His rise now is in an atmosphere of complete hysteria generated by Peyton Manning's availability.

CALM DOWN AND THINK STRAIGHT.

KB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look, this TEAM HAS to get serious about a long
> term solution at QB.

This AIN'T THE YEAR. This ain't the Quarterback Class of 1983 when in the first round sixth Franchise QBs were drafted starting with Elway and ending with Marino.

Calm down and settle down.

captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are no sure things in the NFL draft.

That doesn't mean you have to draft longshot quarterbacks at number 8 in the first round. Particularly when you probably could get Weeden by picking another position at 8 and trading up with those Brandon Marshall thirds an d our own second round pick to late in the 1st round and get Weeden.

You guys are disappointing me. You're suckers! YOu complain about Ross and Ireland when you could get a top stud in another position at nubmer 8 AND STILL HAVE WEEDEN.

You guys should not be trusted to sell the family cow!

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dolphin1423 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Great post KB.
> >
> > Chyren, where has the FO said that Tannehill is
> > the fifth choice?
> >
> > Manning was #1, RGIII #2, then Tannehill. He
> is
> > our third choice and the first two were pipe
> > dreams. Maybe the FO has been targeting
> Tannehill
> > all along and that's why we didn't want to give
> > Flynn big money. Just because the draft is
> after
> > FA doesn't mean your draft pick is your last
> > choice.
>
> I'm confused. We are talking about options for a
> QB. Neither me or anyone else said that THE FRONT
> OFFICE SAID that Tannehill was their fifth choice.
> What I said is that Tannehill IS the fifth
> choice.
>
> But even you concede he was the FO's choice after
> Manning, RGIII, and Flynn (even though they didn't
> want to pay him that does not LOGICALLY mean he is
> still not a higher option) and you can probably
> add after ALEX SMITH who may have got released had
> Peyton gone to SF. I count 5, what about you???
>
> But the point is that he is so FAR DOWN THE TOTEM
> POLE that it is time for us to step back and to
> say, "Hey. Let's not FORCE it. Maybe this year
> just isn't the year."

> You guys act like children. And you are all young
> enough to be my children. You think that because
> you need it, somehow Tannehill will turn into
> Andrew Luck.
>
> Let me ask you this. If we could get Luck or
> RGIII, would you seriously be considering
> Tannehill.
>
> I know, I know. You are gonna say, "Dumb point."
> But is it?
>
> If Tannehill is so far behind (in talent) Luck or
> RGIII, why are you going to waste draft pick
> number 8 on who you consider is LEAGUES BEHIND
> numbers 1 and 2????????
>
> And what if Tannehill ends up no better than
> Fiedler, Culpepper, etc. All you done is wasted a
> top 10 draft choice on another bust.


I understand that position and if Sherman, Ireland, and Philbin don't have a strong conviction on Tannehill then don't force it.

However, the presence of Luck and RGIII in the draft, coupled with Peyton's availability, has given people unrealistically high hopes at the QB position. People need to stop unfairly comparing Tannehill to Luck and RGIII, those two are the best QB prospects in the past decade. Just because Tannehill isn't as good as them doesn't mean he sucks or he is a reach. Tannehill is a legitimate top 10 pick according to a lot of respected draft gurus and he is a franchise QB. If we sit around waiting for the next Luck, RGIII, or Peyton then we will be waiting for a decade at least.

I don't view Tannehill as the fifth choice or fall back option. If we take him, then the FO has been on him since the draft process began. If we take him, then all of our prior moves in FA were predicated on the thought that we will get Tannehill. We weren't all out for one of Peyton, RGIII, Flynn, or Smith and then take Tannehill if all else failed. We graded talent and went for the two with more talent then we looked at those with less talent and tried to get them for a bargain. Who says that we don't take Tannehill even if we get Flynn, Manning, or Smith? While you could certainly look at it like Tannehill is the fifth choice, I don't view it the same way.

jyell, I don't care what Luck's dad says, Luck is a far superior prospect than Barkley. So is RGIII. Don't get me wrong, I still think Barkley is a franchise QB and top 5 draft pick.

dolphin1423 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand that position and if Sherman,
> Ireland, and Philbin don't have a strong
> conviction on Tannehill then don't force it.


What I'm afraid of is in this atmosphere of hysteria, an atmosphere where Ross makes a good move like calling a fan and explaining himself, the lynch mob with the ropes and chains will, in effect, FORCE Ireland to choose Tannehill. Not because they THINK HE'S WORTH A FIRST ROUND NUMBER 8 but to cover their arses and quiet the crowd, if only for a moment.

In other words 1423, you may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecies.

Oh by the way. The reason most mock drafts have Tannehill going at number 8 IS BECAUSE they believe that the Dolphins will pick him at number 8, probably the draft pundits think that our front office will be forced to.

EmDiggy considers what would be in the best interests of the team when he does his mock draft.

Other draft gurus try to assess what the team WANTS TO DO and then basically try to predict what they'll draft.

Why am I saying all this? I'm saying all this to warn you guys that because everyone has Tannehill going to us at number 8, that is no guaranteed that EVEN THESE DRAFT GURUS consider him to be a pick worthy of number 8.

>
> However, the presence of Luck and RGIII in the
> draft, coupled with Peyton's availability, has
> given people unrealistically high hopes at the QB
> position.

Amen to that!

>People need to stop unfairly comparing
> Tannehill to Luck and RGIII, those two are the
> best QB prospects in the past decade.

Well, I think you are overstating what their worth is. I'll concede that Luck has been argued to be another Elway but People think that, at best, RGIII will probably be another Michael Vick, a guy with a similar set of skills and presentations.

But still, if Tannehill is not even in the same category as Michael Vick, if he leagues behind Michael Vick, what the hell does that say you're getting.

I'd take him in the second round. I certainly would not take him before Weeden. But no way is he worth a number 8 overall.


Just
> because Tannehill isn't as good as them doesn't
> mean he sucks or he is a reach. Tannehill is a
> legitimate top 10 pick according to a lot of
> respected draft gurus

NO WAY!

and he is a franchise QB.

Now here's the interesting thing. He may VERY WELL BE a franchise QB. I'm not really saying that he cannot become or will not be a franchise QB. Anybody can be a franchise QB.

Even a sixth round pick like a guy named Tom Brady.

The point is does the player justify the pick and Tannehill does not justify the number 8 pick overall in the draft.


> If we sit around waiting for the next Luck, RGIII,
> or Peyton then we will be waiting for a decade at
> least.

No, what if we get Weeden after picking another position at 8?


>
> I don't view Tannehill as the fifth choice or fall
> back option. If we take him, then the FO has been
> on him since the draft process began.

Or is forced by the present hysteria to take him to shut everyone up.

If we take
> him, then all of our prior moves in FA were
> predicated on the thought that we will get
> Tannehill.

That's circular reasoning. You are assuming the conclusion you set out to prove. You just can't SAY that we had Tannehill in mind as a fall back all along.

It is just as reasonable to think that Tannehill's value became over-inflated just like Flynn's value became over-inflated in the Peyton manning atmosphere.

> We weren't all out for one of Peyton,
> RGIII, Flynn, or Smith and then take Tannehill if
> all else failed.

RESPONSE: I don't know whether you're talking for the Front Office or the fans. But I suspect that, at the right price or if they could, all four of those qbs would have been preferred by the FO than drafting Tannehill at no.8. But given the hysteria of you guys and those who don't belong to this chatboard, they may very well BE forced to draft Tannehill at no. 8.

>We graded talent and went for
> the two with more talent then we looked at those
> with less talent and tried to get them for a
> bargain. Who says that we don't take Tannehill
> even if we get Flynn, Manning, or Smith?

RESPONSE: Oh, I doubt very seriously we sign Peyton or Alex Smith or Matt Flynn and still draft Tannehill at number 8! HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF MATT MOORE? Maybe they might have drafted Weeden in the second round, if they could get him but not spend a number 1 draft choice on another QB (particularly one as questionable as Tannehill) after signing Manning, Smith or Flynn and having Moore still on the roster. You are quarterback CRAZY!

> While
> you could certainly look at it like Tannehill is
> the fifth choice, I don't view it the same way.
>
> jyell, I don't care what Luck's dad says, Luck is
> a far superior prospect than Barkley. So is
> RGIII. Don't get me wrong, I still think Barkley
> is a franchise QB and top 5 draft pick.

Bob,

It simply comes down to opinion. From what I have seen, I am impressed with Tannehill. However, unlike Sherman, I haven't watched him day in and day out for the past 4 years. I also don't know as much about his character and leadership skills.

So you don't think Tannehill is worth the pick. I don't know either way, but I suspect Sherman likes him a lot. If they don't pick him then Sherman would have agreed with you. (I know Ireland and Philbin ulitmately make the pick, but they would probably defer to Sherman in this case. Unless they have strong convictions the other way.)

If he does pick him, I don't think it will be due to forced hysteria. It will be based solely on what they beleive to be the best for the future of the team. Right or wrong.

God do I wish THE TRUTH wasn't blocking you Chyren!

Hey! Can't you guys take me on yourselves?

Jonathan, Sherman was the guy who played him at WR behind Jerrod Johnson. Is Jerrod Johnson an Andrew Luck or RGIII?

People have no idea who will or won't be great QB's. If they did then Brady would have been the #1 pick and so would've Marino...who 26 teams viewed as not being a franchise guy. He was in fact the 6th best QB available in 1983...Funny to me.

Tannehill, whether you like him or not, has extremely good athletic ability, a very good arm, accurracy, timing, can make all of the throws, is very intelligent, and has good footwork. All he is lacking is more college experience...we can't give him that but we can bring him along at this level the proper way by allowing him time to grow.

That's all we can hope for out of a draft pick...Luck is no surer a bet even though many think he is, same story applies with Griffin as well. Tannehill is the best option available to us. We should take him at #8 provided he's there and Philbin/Sherman want him.

C'Mon ken, don't enter logic in this debate

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonathan, Sherman was the guy who played him at WR
> behind Jerrod Johnson. Is Jerrod Johnson an
> Andrew Luck or RGIII?



&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Can't really use that argument either because Brian Griese started over Tom Brady at Michigan.

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

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

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C'Mon ken, don't enter logic in this debate

How about this logic of yours, dolphaholic? We have Philbin, WHO COACHED MATT FLYNN WHILE IN THE NFL but we should draft as number 8 a player because his COLLEGE COACH is on our staff and is the SAME COLLEGE COACH that played him at another position because he thought Jerrod Johnson, someone we've never heard of, WAS BETTER THAN HIM??????

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dolphaholic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > C'Mon ken, don't enter logic in this debate
>
> How about this logic of yours, dolphaholic? We
> have Philbin, WHO COACHED MATT FLYNN WHILE IN THE
> NFL but we should draft as number 8 a player
> because his COLLEGE COACH is on our staff and is
> the SAME COLLEGE COACH that played him at another
> position because he thought Jerrod Johnson,
> someone we've never heard of, WAS BETTER THAN
> HIM??????


No thanks Chyren, while wrestling with a pig in the mud, it doesn't take me long to realize that the pig likes it.

Well if you don't want to get dirty then you should not..........

Regarding Flynn, I said I would be stoked to have him because if we picked him then that would be because Philbin knows he is the real deal. Since we didn't take him, my guess is that Phlibin didn't think much of him. Or, perhaps, they thought highly of Tannehill and see a realistic probability of drafting him. If we draft him, I will be very excited because that means the coaching staff loves him. It won't be because they are caving in to pressure from the media and fans. They may not draft him, in which case, Sherman and company didn't like him that much. Based on what I have seen from Tannehill and they way things are lining-up, I think it will be the former.

SO by ChyrenB's logic, we shouldn't have picked Marino because he was the '6th' option and we already had a QB who had just went to a superbowl?

We need a QB. A couple of them with at least some level of perceived talent will be available when we pick. I ask again, HOW will taking a chance on one of them put us in any worse shape than we have been in over the last 8-10 years?

NINE first round picks THREE of them, including a #1 overall, spent on OL in 8 years and last year we were STILL in the bottom 3rd of the NFL on offense.

Project 'BIG' is a failure. Project 'Any QB will do' is a failure. Project 'Cheap and Safe' is a failure.

If we keep refusing to pay free agents or draft a QB and relying on other teams cast offs we will continue to be non-competitive and mediocre.

Jonathan Twilley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding Flynn, I said I would be stoked to have
> him because if we picked him then that would be
> because Philbin knows he is the real deal. Since
> we didn't take him, my guess is that Phlibin
> didn't think much of him. Or, perhaps, they
> thought highly of Tannehill and see a realistic
> probability of drafting him. If we draft him, I
> will be very excited because that means the
> coaching staff loves him. It won't be because
> they are caving in to pressure from the media and
> fans. They may not draft him, in which case,
> Sherman and company didn't like him that much.
> Based on what I have seen from Tannehill and they
> way things are lining-up, I think it will be the
> former.


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Now that, is the gospel my friends.

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

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

Im going to go out and say we draft Tannehill. Seriously I am 100 percent happy about him being our number 8th overall.


I think not only will he be a awsome QB but he will out shine both Luck and RG111.

The reason why is he will be on a better team and have a better coaching staff, and defense to work with.

Next year we will be drafting premiere WR in the first.

I hope at least, anyway I was worried but I feel we will be ok and draft two third round WR'S plus Im ok with who we got.

However we need another Pass rusher which we should land in the second, with Murthat back we got our RT he is solid and will be just fine there.

We still need a MLB

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SO by ChyrenB's logic, we shouldn't have picked
> > Marino because he was the '6th' option and we
> > already had a QB who had just went to a
> > superbowl?
>
> NO! The analogy doesn't fit BECAUSE at that very
> time everyone said that was the best quarterback
> draft in HISTORY, EVEN BEFORE THE DRAFT TOOK
> PLACE. In this draft they started by saying,
> Andrew Luck naturally. Then when RGIII won the
> Heisman, they took a closer look at him and said
> in many ways he is comparable or better. They
> also ASSUMED MATT BARKLEY would come out. No one
> has said this is a great QB class.
>
> You are letting your desire to draft a great QB
> control your common sense, KB. You're like a
> junkie needing another fix.
>

Yes I want a 'fix' AT THE QB POSITION. We will never get one if we are afraid to take chances in the draft and won't pay in free agency. YES for every Peyton Manning there are a few Jamarcus Russel's. But for every Tom Brady there are 10,000 Chad Hennes. I don't have that long


>
> >
> > We need a QB. A couple of them with at least
> some
> > level of perceived talent will be available
> when
> > we pick. I ask again, HOW will taking a chance
> on
> > one of them put us in any worse shape than we
> have
> > been in over the last 8-10 years?
>
>
> HOW? By making the rest of our team SUCK while we
> are waiting as well. The NY Jets think they are
> only a quarterback away. And one could argue that
> they are right. Can you honestly say the same
> about us?

Well how do you describe the last 8 years if not SUCK and we've been doing what you want...Waiting and playing it safe. The only decent year is when we had an actual functioning NFL caliber QB. The year Pennington stayed healthy. The only reason he was signed is that he was injured and cheap. That year we were 11-5 won the division AND a playoff game. The other 7 years we have been a combined 40-72. So yea at one time we were CLOSE to a QB away (Just not an old injured one).

> >
> > NINE first round picks THREE of them, including
> a
> > #1 overall, spent on OL in 8 years and last
> year
> > we were STILL in the bottom 3rd of the NFL on
> > offense.
>
> Well, we got Pouncey and Jake Long but let's
> assume you're right. You trust these same people
> to recognize talent at QB, assuming it's Ireland
> calling the shots.

We also got Vernon Carey in '04. THREE first rounders, still starters on the OL, so yes they were talent but without a QB in the NFL your not going to be successful.

>
>
> > Project 'BIG' is a failure. Project 'Any QB
> will
> > do' is a failure. Project 'Cheap and Safe' is
> a
> > failure.
> >
> > If we keep refusing to pay free agents or draft
> a
> > QB and relying on other teams cast offs we will
> > continue to be non-competitive and mediocre.
>
> A choice isn't a good choice simply based on your
> need to make a choice. If there is nothing there,
> the only sensible choice is to go elsewhere with
> your choice.

And "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Rush(showing my age ) WE have chosen to be mediocre by being to tentative and cheap to address the QB position.

- edt to correct record from 2004-2011 excluding 08. It was 40-72 NOT 40-60



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2012 10:09AM by KB.

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We still need a MLB


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Lol. You been screaming for this ever since Zach left!!

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

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

Good find on Casserlys assessment JimB

After reading Casserly's take, I have an even stronger conviction in drafting Tannehill. I respect Casserly's opinion and it further reinforces what I have thought. Tannehill has the goods.

Put all that together with playing for the exact same coach and system providing for a seamless transition, then I feel like Tannehill is a perfect fit for the Dolphins. Perhaps, even a better fit than those first two quarterbacks.