Poll

What if Tannehill's gone or we pass on him?

Only registered users are allowed to vote for this poll.
14 votes were received.

Trade back up into the bottom of the 1st for Weedon	6		43%
Take best available QB in the 2nd rnd.	3		21%
Take best available QB in the 3rd rnd.	1		7%
Sit tight with Moore/Garrard	4		29%

---

I'm curious what everyone wants to do about a QB of the future if Tannehill is gone or Sherman says "NYET". I didn't put a trade down scenario in the poll because most everyone will say "just trade down and take Weedon", sounds good on paper but it's not that easy. If we pass or lose out on Tannehill, there is a real chance we can lose out on Weedon as well.
Before you say "trading down has to be an option", it'd be way easier for us to move back up into the 1st from the 2nd rnd (even though that could cost us our 2-3rd's) then it would be for us to find a trading partner and move down from #8. I'm not really sure what my answer is on this question, probably take the best available QB in rnd 2 (fingers crossed it's Weedon)

THIS POLL IS ASSUMING WE FILL ANOTHER POSITION @ #8



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2012 01:11PM by dolphaholic.

I did not participate.

There is no option listed for drafting another position at 8.

I don't think we need to forego that pick and trade down to get Weeden.

We have enough 3rds to have our cake at no. 8 and then trade up using our 9th pick in the second round ADDED to by our 3rd round picks from Chicago to trade UP AFTERWARDS to the low 1st round or high second round to still get Weeden. The only possible competition would be Cleveland but in order for them to give up the no. 4, they would have to pass on Blackmon which I don't think that they'll do.

You can edit your poll to include that option.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2012 08:42AM by ChyrenB.

Ooops, you said Tannehill was gone. That could only be by Cleveland. Nonetheless, my point works either way. There is no QB competition left for Weeden so why not use my method where we have our cake and eat it too.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I did not participate.
>
> There is no option listed for drafting another
> position at 8.
>
> I don't think we need to forego that pick and
> trade down to get Weeden.
>
> We have enough 3rds to have our cake at no. 8 and
> then trade up using our 9th pick in the second
> round ADDED to by our 3rd round picks from Chicago
> to trade UP AFTERWARDS to the low 1st round or
> high second round to still get Weeden. The only
> possible competition would be Cleveland but in
> order for them to give up the no. 4, they would
> have to pass on Blackmon which I don't think that
> they'll do.
>
> You can edit your poll to include that option.


I can't edit the poll once it was voted on, but all of those scenarios are basically assuming we do draft another position at #8, the only thing I missed was taking Weedon at #8........doubt that would of gotten many votes.

Well you can edit your poll. I edited my poll after voting started to add more answers.

However, I did not interpret those scenarios as taking another position at 8 but if you say so then it does because it's your poll. Hopefully everyone who votes will read your second post before they vote.

DO people understand that we are now running a WCO that requires the QB to be mobile?

Do you also understand that Wheedon is not very mobile?

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

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

Seattle ran it with Hasselbeck and he couldn't move. Moore can run it

We can't waste an 8 on Tannehill

Trade down!!!

Hopefully Cleveland takes him, but I doubt it will happen

He hasn't proven he can play against the better college teams, and we are going to waste a #8?

Tannehill, Weeden , Cousins, Osweiler, Wilson

Not a lot of difference between then, none worth a first round pick.


Look at Ponder & Gabbert. Reaches that looked like John Beck and Chad Henne

I'm absolutely stunned at this fan base. Stunned.

We have begged for a QB for 14 years, and we have the most talented and already knowledgeable on the offensive scheme as we have ever had an opportunity to get......

And you guys say no????


wTF is wrong with you guys?? Seriously.

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

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

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm absolutely stunned at this fan base. Stunned.
>
> We have begged for a QB for 14 years, and we have
> the most talented and already knowledgeable on the
> offensive scheme as we have ever had an
> opportunity to get......
>
> And you guys say no????
>
>
> wTF is wrong with you guys?? Seriously.


Let me explain it to you, A & O. Or at least, let me provide focus.

See your problem is that you see us as Zombies, mindlessly wanting to pick offensive line and things other than quarterbacks over and over, year after year.

In reality, we are aspirin. Trying to bring down your fever for a quarterback that is so high it would lead you to make a desperation pick like Tannehill.

If Weeden is a bust after we pick him with our second pick, so what? We still made a top 10 pick at another position with our no. 8.

But if Tannehill is a bust, then here we are next year in 2013 (or worst two or three years afterwards) trying to figure out who is our desperation Plan B after Barkley is beyond our reach.

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm absolutely stunned at this fan base. Stunned.
>
> We have begged for a QB for 14 years, and we have
> the most talented and already knowledgeable on the
> offensive scheme as we have ever had an
> opportunity to get......
>
> And you guys say no????
>
>
> wTF is wrong with you guys?? Seriously.

A&O, these delusions come from Luck and RGIII being elite prospects and Manning being available. The thing is, when the two best QB prospects in the past decade are in the draft and the best QB of his generation is available in FA, people start getting unrealistic expectations regarding the position.

RGIII and Luck are vastly better than Tannehill right NOW, but Tannehill has the potential to be a top 5 QB. The problem is that people want the best QB in the whole league, which Manning was before injury and which is the potential of Luck and RGIII.

In reality, we should ALL be thrilled with getting a potential top 5 QB at #8. All the people that were hoping we could somehow get Gabbert last year should be clamoring even more for Tannehill. Tannehill grades out as a better prospect than Gabbert. I mean, COME ON, if we aren't going to pull the trigger on a guy with the mental and physical gifts of Tannehill along with his high celing, then when the HELL are we going to do it? All first round QBs are a risk. We will be waiting a long time to draft another QB as polished and talented as Luck or even RGIII.

It doesn't make sense but there are a lot of delusional dolfans right now.

I am just stunned, man. Absolutely stunned.

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

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

I mean, we are talking Day 1. The absolute #1 day he steps on the field at OTA's, Tannehill is the most knowledgeable player we have on our team concerning our offense.

Day 1.

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

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

I know it. Just last year, everyone on this board had a QB fever so bad they wanted Mallet. Now, everyone finds this or that to nitpick every single QB to death. The perfect prospect doesn't exist. They all have flaws and concerns. You just have to weigh the positives and negatives. Sounds simple but people around here can't grasp that concept.

Holic! Looks like you're losing your own poll. Plurality agrees with me!

Oh, you assume Tannehill's gone, don't you? My bad.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2012 06:55PM by ChyrenB.

well Cleveland wasnt even in full attendance at Tannehill workout, they were at Trent Richardson's.

Bob,

I don't understand why you think he is such a reach. Have you watched his game film? It is pretty damn impressive. Both Mayock and McShay love him. While some say it would be a bit of a reach to pick him in the top 10, I haven't heard anyone say he isn't a 1st rounder.He also satisfies a major position of need. Compound all that with his familarity with the system and coach and I think Tannehill would make a logical choice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2012 10:07AM by Jonathan Twilley.

We just disagree Jonathan. Mainly on my part because I think Weeden is just as good if not better and we can fill another need with the number 8 and still get Weeden.

What in the hell difference does it make to us that he is 28 years old? Even some of Tannehill's analyst supporters say that Tannehill will take two years of seasoning.

Getting two for the price of one motivates me, which means getting a top WR, DE or OL at 8 plus Weeden instead of Tannehill at 8 alone.

I think the hesitancy with tannehill is that when we think of a top 10 drafted QB, we think of someone who started many years at college and dominated the competition, Not someone who started out at a different position and started for just 1.5 yrs and did not dominate against the good teams (he played his worst against them). Now there may be legit reasons for all that, as mark and a and o have tried to point out, and it may be that his overall skill set is such that he truly deserves to be taken at 8 or even higher. But there are major question marks with tannehill and while I am coming around to taking him at 8 (but not trade up!) I can certainly see why many are not too thrilled with the idea.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Listen,

I have no clue whether he will be a franchise QB or a bust.

But, I am the one who has always said, you pick a QB high and try and put the pieces around him to succeed.

When everybody on here wanted Jake Long, I wanted Matt Ryan. When everybody on here wanted Ronnie Brown, I wanted Aaron Rodgers.

This is another case of that. If a guy, who has potential like this, falls in your lap...you take him, and put the pieces around him to succeed.

The first step to succeed is already in place. The system.

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

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

You don't do that WITH JUST ANY QUARTERBACK, A & O. You have to have confidence in a QB that you pick in the top 10 OF THE FIRST ROUND, that he is going to QUALIFY as a top quarterback in the NFL.

You don't just "take a flyer" at no. 8 overall as you would in the 3rd round.

I'm warming to Tannehill at 8 because we'll only take him with Sherman's blessing. I've cooled on Weeden, purely because I'm not sure about his footwork; nothing to do with age

DaytonaDolfan13 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well Cleveland wasnt even in full attendance at
> Tannehill workout, they were at Trent
> Richardson's.


Cleveland OC Brad Childress was there, and they are having him in for a private workout.

Keep in mind, Cleveland is run by Mike Holmgren. Mike Sherman is a Holmgren disciple. Anyone want to bet if Sherman and Holmgren ever had a conversation about Tannehill before Sherman was hired in Miami? I am sure Cleveland knows a lot about him.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't do that WITH JUST ANY QUARTERBACK, A &
> O. You have to have confidence in a QB that you
> pick in the top 10 OF THE FIRST ROUND, that he is
> going to QUALIFY as a top quarterback in the NFL.
>
> You don't just "take a flyer" at no. 8 overall as
> you would in the 3rd round.


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Well of course, Chyren.

Thats exactly what Mark, Dolphaholic, Myself and others have been saying.

If we take Tannehill at #8 it is because they believe he is the real deal...

no matter what you, Crowder, me, Mark, or anyone else says.

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

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