Right, samsam. And another thing. Notice how you rarely see any of them with the notable exception of Mel Kiper that actually criticize a potential draftee???????????

The most they will say is that "he could be better at this but he is great at that."


Kiper goes out on a line and says the guy is going to be a bust. And for that reason, most of the rest of them and most of you guys too, hate Kiper.

Now I don't know what Kiper has said about Tannehill. For all I know he has praised him (haven't taken this year's subscription yet). But that would mean something to me unlike these other guys.

didn't the bill walsh 49ers basically invent the WC offense? And didn't they have Rice, and much later T.O.?
I don't think having a superstud WR is incompatable with the WCO. Walsh traded up to get Rice in 1985.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> didn't the bill walsh 49ers basically invent the
> WC offense? And didn't they have Rice, and much
> later T.O.?
> I don't think having a superstud WR is
> incompatable with the WCO. Walsh traded up to get
> Rice in 1985.


I agree, I think what DOlfanmark was suggesting is that typically in a WCO, big recievers and speedy recievers are not valued as high... But that is a pretty blanket vanilla statement read from the West Coast offense hand guide...
But you are right T.O, Keyshawn Johnson and Tim Brown all big #1 recievers who thrived in a WCO...
I think Dolfanmark was referring to size more then the idea of #1... Hell Greg Jennins has been a #1 reciever in GB the last 4-5 years under Philbin...Just not a big guy, but defintely a #1...

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Kiper goes out on a line and says the guy is going
> to be a bust. And for that reason, most of the
> rest of them and most of you guys too, hate
> Kiper.


I dont hate my worst enemy.

My point is all they are doing is making predictions. And they have to hit on some players because they talk about everybody.

BTW chren its easier to predict a bust than to predict a player is going to be great.

That is true. But predicting a bust, like Mel Kiper usually does, gains you a lot more enemies......and those enemies are in the football world and have an impact on your future.

Even fans go to hate you when you talk down their favorite boy.

I bet some of the Tannehill supporters on this board would feel the same way about anyone who talked down Tannehill.

It is their hunger and desire for a QB that makes them WANT TO BELIEVE that Tannehill is our next great QB after Dan Marino.

LOL.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It is their hunger and desire for a QB that makes
> them WANT TO BELIEVE that Tannehill is our next
> great QB after Dan Marino.
>
> LOL.

GOD Do i agree with that!

Tannehill is pretty solid and will only get better. Dont hate on this pick.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now I don't know what Kiper has said about
> Tannehill. For all I know he has praised him
> (haven't taken this year's subscription yet). But
> that would mean something to me unlike these other
> guys.


You saying you value Kipers opinion over someone like Mayock or G Cosell is all I need to know. I just crawled out of the mud!

Last year Kiper, Mayock,etc all said Newton, Gabbert, Ponder, and Locker were worthy of top ten picks, does that mean they are saying all 4 of those guys are going to be succefull NFL franchise QB's...
I dont think it does.... So you have to seperate what they are saying... One doesnt equate to the other....
I find it funny that Andy Dalton had the most immediate success....

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You saying you value Kipers opinion over someone
> like Mayock or G Cosell is all I need to know. I
> just crawled out of the mud!

RESPONSE: Git yer butt back in here, Earl!

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Gruden a WCO coach, while at Tampa Bay with
> Keyshawn Johnson went on to win a Superbowl with
> his #1 reciever and his West Coast Offense...
> I am pretty sure Gruden in his west coast offense
> in Oakland like his number 1 reciever Tim Brown

******************************************************

I believe when the 49ers ran the WCO, didn't they have a WR named Jerry Rice? He did pretty well.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > didn't the bill walsh 49ers basically invent
> the
> > WC offense? And didn't they have Rice, and much
> > later T.O.?
> > I don't think having a superstud WR is
> > incompatable with the WCO. Walsh traded up to
> get
> > Rice in 1985.
>
>
> I agree, I think what DOlfanmark was suggesting is
> that typically in a WCO, big recievers and speedy
> recievers are not valued as high... But that is a
> pretty blanket vanilla statement read from the
> West Coast offense hand guide...
> But you are right T.O, Keyshawn Johnson and Tim
> Brown all big #1 recievers who thrived in a
> WCO...
> I think Dolfanmark was referring to size more then
> the idea of #1... Hell Greg Jennins has been a #1
> reciever in GB the last 4-5 years under
> Philbin...Just not a big guy, but defintely a
> #1...

Well, I don't think it's ever a good idea to invoke the name of Jerry Rice, the greatest WR of all time, when trying to compare anyone. The traditional WCO demands guys who can get in and out of their breaks quickly and make catches at full speed. In general, those are smaller guys. Getting in and out of breaks quickly is usually the number one difficulty a big WR has. You'll hear scouts talk about them having a hard time "sinking their hips," and it's those quick movements in and out of breaks they are talking about.

But, what I am more referring to is the #1 WR in terms of a "go to guy." Jordy Nelson led Green Bay in receiving in 2011. Greg Jennings led them in 2010. Donald Driver led them in 2009. It was Greg Jennings in 2008. And it was Driver in 2007. Notice, not the same guy any two years in a row.

In 2007, they had 7 guys with 20+ catches.
2008- 6 guys with 20+ catches
2009- 8 guys with 20+ catches
2010- 7 guys with 20+ catches
2011- 7 guys with 25+ catches

During his two years in Miami, Brandon Marshall was targeted on 30% of our pass plays. Think about that, 30% of our pass plays went to one guy. That is definitely the definition of a #1 WR.

Here's Green Bay:
2011- Jennings got the most targets, 17.5% of their pass plays
2010- Jennings again, 22%
2009- Donald Driver, 19.7%

People need to forget throwing the ball to one guy every 3 pass attempts. That's not going to happen any more. Marshall was getting 135 targets a year. Assuming we throw the ball around 500 times, our leading guy is only likely to get about 100 targets. Last year, Jennings got 96 targets, Nelson got 92, and Finley got 91. That's the 3 leading guys, all getting around 17% of the targets. That is spreading the ball around. That's what the WCO is all about. And that's what I mean when I say a #1 WR doesn't exist in this system, at least not in terms of how Brandon Marshall was a #1.

When I look at Tannehill I see a QB that has one of the single best group of skills present in any QB the Phins have ever had the chance to draft...incuding Marino.

Now, before you guys pull out the ropes, call for a lynching, and also attempt to have me committed to a home for the criminally insane let me explain.

No doubt, Marino had all of the following attributes in world class quantities; arm, lightning quick release, intelligence, poise, leadership, accuracy, coolness, command presence, respect, determination, and awareness. That's why he re-wrote the record books, is in the hall of fame, and is the single best QB I've ever seen.

However he lacked mobility outside of a five yard backfield, couldn't run very quickly, had no shiftiness, and was one dimensional in his game...not that you could stop him from throwing sucessfully very often mind you.

Tannehill has all of the skills and intangibles required for him to be a success, plus he has the added attribute of very good mobility...the ONLY thing Marino lacked.

Now, I'm not actually comparing Tannehill to Marino here, nor am I suggesting he's on the same level as Marino, or as good as Marino either. I also am not suggesting Tannehill will have as good a career, or that he will be a success at all...just that he's got the skills to make him a guy we should get in a Phins uniform, if we can...the ONLY thing he lacks is an abundance of collegiate experience.

First, I won't cheap shot you on the comparisons to Marino and I read your qualifications (meaning statements wherein you qualified your analogy), however, my simple question is that given that even you are saying that your analyst does not mean he is on the same level as Marino or that he will be as good as Marino "or that he will be a success at all,"...................................my question is "How does that make him any different than scores of college QBs that have come out since Marino?"

In other words, it's one thing to say that you are NOT saying he is as good as Marino. But then you have the task to demonstrate how his similarity with Marino means anything MORE than the same similarities probably possessed by 100 QBs coming out of college since 1983, when Dan did.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, I won't cheap shot you on the comparisons
> to Marino and I read your qualifications (meaning
> statements wherein you qualified your analogy),
> however, my simple question is that given that
> even you are saying that your analyst does not
> mean he is on the same level as Marino or that he
> will be as good as Marino "or that he will be a
> success at
> all,"...................................

RE: I appreciate not starting the lynchmob. This is because no rookie can be annointed a sure fire sucess because such a thing does not exist.

my
> question is "How does that make him any different
> than scores of college QBs that have come out
> since Marino?"

RE" He's different in the respect that he has such a high degree of quality skills and that he actually played, and was very sucessful in, more than one skill position...that's pretty rare on the whole. Most people that are converted players were really not that good at thier old position. It also allows him as a QB to have a better insight and understanding of the problems WR's, RB's and TE's face as well as a greater understanding of route running, and that should allow him to better assist them in being productive.

>
> In other words, it's one thing to say that you are
> NOT saying he is as good as Marino.

RE: Good because I wasent.

But then you
> have the task to demonstrate how his similarity
> with Marino means anything MORE than the same
> similarities probably possessed by 100 QBs coming
> out of college since 1983, when Dan did.

RE: Similarities are just that until they actually produce in the NFL...we are all just guessing, even the best are. In short, his similarities don't mean anything more or less than those 100 guys...at this point. Just the same as Luck's, or Griffin's don't mean anything either. But, he has demonstrated accurracy, ability, a very good arm (even if it isn't quite world class like Dan's was), poise, leadership, intelligence, pocket presence, comitment, selflessness, timing, and a great work ethic. That's a very good foundation, and all positive traits that he shares with Marino.

ALL we can look at this time of year is what they did in school and what they did at the combine and/or a pro day. Tannehill has the required skill set, he has also demonstrated those skills, but only in limited college playing.

Now, his challenge is to demonstrate them day in, and day out, regardless of the competition, weather, travel, media, hype, injuries, pressure, mistakes, bad luck, etc.

THE question he has to answer now is what will he do with those skills? THAT, is the million dollar question and we'd all be rich if we could answer that.

Ken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> RE: Similarities are just that until they actually
> produce in the NFL...we are all just guessing,
> even the best are. In short, his similarities
> don't mean anything more or less than those 100
> guys...at this point. Just the same as Luck's, or
> Griffin's don't mean anything either.

But the difference is that pundits HAVE talked about Luck being the best prospect in decades and RGIII is a Heisman Trophy winner. That separates the TWO OF THEM from the one hundred or so quarterbacks since Dan who meet your criteria. Tannehill is just one of those hundred or so.

How would I like to see it go?

How about every team whiffs on their pick and we take Andrew Luck?

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ken Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > RE: Similarities are just that until they
> actually
> > produce in the NFL...we are all just guessing,
> > even the best are. In short, his similarities
> > don't mean anything more or less than those 100
> > guys...at this point. Just the same as Luck's,
> or
> > Griffin's don't mean anything either.
>
> But the difference is that pundits HAVE talked
> about Luck being the best prospect in decades and
> RGIII is a Heisman Trophy winner. That separates
> the TWO OF THEM from the one hundred or so
> quarterbacks since Dan who meet your criteria.
> Tannehill is just one of those hundred or so.


RE: Yeah, but how many pundits every year are dead wrong about players...they are guessing just like we are. Also, the Heisman isn't really a ringing endorsement either...the list of successful Heisman winners is appallingly short.

In fact, you could make a very good case for passing on any QB that wins the Heisman, and instead, taking one of the top two, or three guys, that didn't. Based soley on that one fact you would be quite successful at finding good QB's. Yeah, you'd miss a time or two over your career, but you are going to do that anyway.

Ok, so here is the gist of this whole situation......


Chyren loves Ryan Mallett and hates Ryan Tannehill unless Mel Kiper says otherwise.



Whew, ok, got it. Thanks! Took time, but I got it!

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

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

Yes, It would suck.

But I am also the only one on this board who feels that 3 or 4 1st round picks is easily worth trading for RG3.

In 5 years when RG3 is a superstar, everyone will wish they had given Up what it took to get him.

RG3 will make everyone forget about Luck, Mallett, and any other QB not named Cam Newton or Sam Bradford (who I think will be a star).

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

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

Whoa! Wait a minute. When did this conversation switch from Tannehill, who I hate, to RGIII, who I am willing to give up 3 firsts for???????????????????????

it's nice to see that Chyren B has developed a sense of humor. Seriously. Retirement must suit you.

A WR in west coast is a guy quick in and out of cuts. Agood team player, an unselfish player, an excellent route runner.

If Blackman is those things then we would take him

dolphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A WR in west coast is a guy quick in and out of
> cuts. Agood team player, an unselfish player, an
> excellent route runner.
>
> If Blackman is those things then we would take him


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
It's not going to matter. He wont make it past 6. That is garaunteed.

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

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

dolphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A WR in west coast is a guy quick in and out of
> cuts. Agood team player, an unselfish player, an
> excellent route runner.
>
> If Blackman is those things then we would take him

And very FEW of those characteristics apply to Brandon Marshall, which is why Ross correctly said that he would have had to cut him if he didn't trade him.

You're right, A & O, but if by some miracle he did, would you take him or still want to draft Tannehill?

Well if by some "miracle" as you are stating, then it really is moot point because the only even possible way he falls to #8 is if Cleveland at #4 takes Tannehill, so both wont be on the board, anyways.

And if that is the case, and Cleveland takes Tannehill at #4, and some "miracle" takes place, then I say trade down. You are gauranteed to pick up a #1 pick in 2013.

You could use those picks as a package to get Matt Barkley, since we obviously would not have gotten Tannehill.

But....this is the biggest gaurantee of all. Rams will take Blackmon no matter who is on the board. Blackmon will be in St. Louis. Gauranteed.

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

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

dolfanmark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But, what I am more referring to is the #1 WR in
> terms of a "go to guy." Jordy Nelson led Green Bay
> in receiving in 2011. Greg Jennings led them in
> 2010. Donald Driver led them in 2009. It was Greg
> Jennings in 2008. And it was Driver in 2007.
> Notice, not the same guy any two years in a row.
>
> In 2007, they had 7 guys with 20+ catches.
> 2008- 6 guys with 20+ catches
> 2009- 8 guys with 20+ catches
> 2010- 7 guys with 20+ catches
> 2011- 7 guys with 25+ catches
>
> During his two years in Miami, Brandon Marshall
> was targeted on 30% of our pass plays. Think about
> that, 30% of our pass plays went to one guy. That
> is definitely the definition of a #1 WR.
>
> Here's Green Bay:
> 2011- Jennings got the most targets, 17.5% of
> their pass plays
> 2010- Jennings again, 22%
> 2009- Donald Driver, 19.7%
>
> People need to forget throwing the ball to one guy
> every 3 pass attempts. That's not going to happen
> any more. Marshall was getting 135 targets a year.
> Assuming we throw the ball around 500 times, our
> leading guy is only likely to get about 100
> targets. Last year, Jennings got 96 targets,
> Nelson got 92, and Finley got 91. That's the 3
> leading guys, all getting around 17% of the
> targets. That is spreading the ball around. That's
> what the WCO is all about. And that's what I mean
> when I say a #1 WR doesn't exist in this system,
> at least not in terms of how Brandon Marshall was
> a #1.


Greg Jennings was the number 1 reciever the last 4 years or so. Driver was a little older and use to be the number 1. Once they had them both in prime around 2007 trough 2009 it was like having Duper and Clayton... both guys are number 1 recievers. That would be great, but first thing you have to do is have a number 1 reciever before you can have 2 of them... Who is our number 1 reciever on our roster?

I agree with Ken on everything about Tannehill. I will take it a step further and say if Miami drafts this kid he will go on to lead a better NFL career than Luck and RG111.