If Tannehill was in that class he would be ranked 2nd, behind Barkley.

That's a fact.

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

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

An A&O fact! He wasn't ahead of Jones when Jones was in. With another year of college maybe.

If we take him I hope he is the franchise, with his inexperience and poor stats against good college teams he smells like Blaine Gabbert, Matt Cassell or Kevin Kolb to me.

All reaches by desperate teams

If we do take him and suck we need to tank like the colts for barkley

I promise you that Tannehill would have been drafted ahead of Landry Jones if Jones would have decided to come out.

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

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

Hey A/O, is that a guaranteed fact?!

Actually, I think Wheedon would have been selected before Jones.

Rumor is, Jones was given a 2nd - 3rd round grade by the draft committee, thats why he decided to go back to school.

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

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

We need to get a guy when we have the chance...Tannehill is the best option THIS YEAR, and he has ALL of the tools, and required skills. If he isn't what he appears to be, then we should draft another guy next year. All we have to do, to find our guy, is to start drafting guys.

Waiting until next year, every year, is what got us into this boat in the first place.

Tannehill's experience level be dammed...he has all of the intangibles and everything you look for in a QB skill wise.

But Ken, what if we pass on a Jake Long to get a project QB? Yeah, I know, we have drafted linemen for 10 years and what has it gotten us. But if we draft a QB that never starts, it's not as simple as "well, we'll just get one next year" because you have made other portions of your team inferior by failing to upgrade them.

If we want to take flyers and chances on qbs, shouldn't we at least not burn our top 10 pick but take that flyer late in the first round at least or maybe in the second round?

Or we can draft a lineman who never starts.

Since Parcells showed up we have drafted/signed 53 offensive lineman.

Thats ridiculous.

The last time we drafted a QB in the first round, you were jacking yor baby wenis when it had pork chops for sideburns.

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

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

I understand the football part but the other part...????? BUt it sounds funny.

But good point. A lineman can be a bust just like a QB. But I'd say that the position of OL or DE is more capable of being accurated projected onto the pros and thus predicted tham QB. But yeah, there is a risk no matter what you do. Nothing is ever guaranteed.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But Ken, what if we pass on a Jake Long to get a
> project QB? Yeah, I know, we have drafted linemen
> for 10 years and what has it gotten us. But if we
> draft a QB that never starts, it's not as simple
> as "well, we'll just get one next year" because
> you have made other portions of your team inferior
> by failing to upgrade them.

RE: Thats fine because there is no guarantee that the Jake Long we pick will turn out to be the Jake Long we wanted, or needed. There is also the possibility that the area of the team we neglect by taking Tannehill in the top ten is shored up with an equal or even better player who came out of nowhere we took in the second or third round...happens all of the time.

You have to look at the spot where you are drafting...we have no choice but to draft a developmental QB because there wont be any guys left that aren't when we pick. I don't see it as a problem to draft a guy that needs to develop just a bit before we hand him the starting job. Especially when that guy has the skills, and intangibles of Tannehill. It just depends on the player. I happen to think that Tannehill is worth the pick. And it is as simple as if we miss we'll just draft another guy next year...the fact is, we SHOULD HAVE been taking a QB somewhere in every draft since 98. Had we done that with an eye toward the future we wouldn't be in all likelihood, scrambling now.

> If we want to take flyers and chances on qbs,
> shouldn't we at least not burn our top 10 pick but
> take that flyer late in the first round at least
> or maybe in the second round?

RE: As I said it depend on the player...Tannehill has the skills to warrant the pick. His experience level is what people are turned off by. Taking a player later is all fine and dandy but you don't do that when there is a better prospect waiting for you to take him...Tannehill, IMHO, is more complete and formidible than Weeden, Cousins, Oswieler, or Foles. If Tannehill is taken before we pick then you have to look at those guys...but not until. The only scenario where we shouldn't take him is the one where the coaches absolutely don't want him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2012 04:00AM by Ken.

Hence, Billy Milner.

You draft a QB high, then build around him.

You dont draft a Guard or Tackle and build you franchise around them. We have been trying to do that since the Jake Long pick. That is called Failure.

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

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

if its amn Eli Manning, Mat Stafford, matt Ryan gype with proven college #'s, that is one thing, but that philosophy didn't work well with worked with guys like Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Tim Couch, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Blaine Gabbert, Jemarcus Russell,many ranked much higher than Tannehill. Question is still out on Colt McCoy, Christian Ponder, Sam Bradford,Mark Sanchez.

Personally I think Sanchez was a major reach, watch out for tebow!

Infact the reppa will go on record today! right now!! as saying logan thomas will leapfrog atleast 4 of the top 5 guys that you have on that list! he will be a first round prospect! The reppa knows qb's lol...

Remember the name LOGAN THOMAS out of Vtech for those who wanna say the reppa is finally wrong



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2012 10:11AM by Miami Reppa.

Logan Thomas is a terrible, terrible, I MEAN ATROCIOUS passer!


You do realize this is a pass first league, right!?

I dont see Terrelly Pryor & Vince Young tearing the league up, and there is a reason for that.

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

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

Reppa you are wrong about Logan he will need to spend the next two years running Va Techs O to polish himself into a nfl prospect. One more year is not going to prepare him.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ken Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thats fine because there is no guarantee that
> > the Jake Long we pick will turn out to be the
> Jake
> > Long we wanted, or needed.
>
> True but the number of 1st round qb busts is a lot
> larger than the number of linemen busts. As far
> as "need," I'm a little puzzled unless you are
> talking about that need being satisfied in free
> agency.

RE: No I'm talking about the need on this team for a RG or RT being satisfied in the draft with the #8 pick. You previously brought up the "what if" scenario of passing on a Jake Long to draft a project QB...but you already knew that.
>
>
>
> There is also the
> > possibility that the area of the team we
> neglect
> > by taking Tannehill in the top ten is shored up
> > with an equal or even better player who came
> out
> > of nowhere we took in the second or third
> > round...happens all of the time.
>
> True. That's true. But more often, a top WR or
> lineman comes from the top of the draft.

RE: True.
>
> > You have to look at the spot where you are
> > drafting...we have no choice but to draft a
> > developmental QB because there wont be any guys
> > left that aren't when we pick.
>
> Not true. Brandon Weeden will be around AFTER OUR
> SECOND PICK and he is not a "developmental" QB.

RE: Thats what they say anyway...But Weeden won't come in and start for THIS team come September. He'll have to wait because he won't beat out the guy's on our roster. That is a possibility that I'm willing to wait a year for though.
>
> In one sense, ALL rookies are developmental QBs
> because they have not previously played
> PROFESSIONAL football.

RE: True.
>
> But Tannehill is called developmental because even
> analysts who like what they see feel he needs to
> sit a couple of years.

RE: Just because of his limited experience...not because of majorly undeveloped skills.
>
> Weeden's problem, on the other hand, is the
> OPPOSITE. They feel he is old and although may
> start next year only has so few years left to
> play. I wouldn't call that "developmental."

RE: I see your point but since he won't start for us from day one he's a developmental guy for the Phins.
>
>
> I don't see it as a
> > problem to draft a guy that needs to develop
> just
> > a bit before we hand him the starting job.
> > Especially when that guy has the skills, and
> > intangibles of Tannehill. It just depends on
> the
> > player. I happen to think that Tannehill is
> worth
> > the pick. And it is as simple as if we miss
> we'll
> > just draft another guy next year...the fact is,
> we
> > SHOULD HAVE been taking a QB somewhere in every
> > draft since 98. Had we done that with an eye
> > toward the future we wouldn't be in all
> > likelihood, scrambling now.
>
> I haven't done the research but I am skeptical of
> this claim.

RE: OK.
>
> The only way to know is to look at each of our
> picks since 1998, that's some 14 drafts counting
> 1998 itself. Then you'd have to see which
> quarterbacks were picked AFTER EACH AND EVERY
> ROUND to establish which QBs we passed on. THEN
> you'd have to see which were busts and which were
> not.

RE: OK, but the point of the statement is that there is no way that every QB we had a chance to draft since 98 turned out to be no good. We simply have to draft guys and stop passing them up.
>
> Get back to us when you have done so. You can
> google each draft.

RE: I can prove the thought with one name...Tom Brady. We could have drafted him in 2000. There are of course more quality guys that were on the board when we made picks and didn't take them over the years.
>
>
>
> > As I said it depend on the player...Tannehill
> > has the skills to warrant the pick. His
> experience
> > level is what people are turned off by. Taking
> a
> > player later is all fine and dandy but you
> don't
> > do that when there is a better prospect waiting
> > for you to take him...Tannehill, IMHO, is more
> > complete and formidible than Weeden, Cousins,
> > Oswieler, or Foles. If Tannehill is taken
> before
> > we pick then you have to look at those
> guys...but
> > not until. The only scenario where we shouldn't
> > take him is the one where the coaches
> absolutely
> > don't want him.
>
> This of course gets back to one's evaluation of
> Tannehill and whether he is better than those,
> particularly Weeden, about whom I would say no way
> is he better.

RE: That's OK, everyone has an opinion and only time will show who's was correct.

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Logan Thomas is a terrible, terrible, I MEAN
> ATROCIOUS passer!
>
>
> You do realize this is a pass first league,
> right!?
>
> I dont see Terrelly Pryor & Vince Young tearing
> the league up, and there is a reason for that.


hey thats funny i thought that you blocked me lol... and if he has a great year next year do you change this post as well?

mizzou15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reppa you are wrong about Logan he will need to
> spend the next two years running Va Techs O to
> polish himself into a nfl prospect. One more year
> is not going to prepare him.


I agree he is a project. I think this was his first real year at qb, the year before he was playing TE, i dont know if he was qb in highschool. You may be right he may need more than one year. However i would not be surprise if he can gain alot of momentum this up coming year. We will see but he is definetly someone i think has alot of promise...

Logan Thomas is an absolute garbage of a passer.

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

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

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Logan Thomas is an absolute garbage of a passer.


im just curious if you have ever watched him play? keep in mind we are talking about a division 1 starting qb. To say that the qb is a garbage passer to be honest makes no sense. He is not super mobile so he cant really beat you with his feet, so if he cant pass what is he doing back there?

Reppa,

Do you realize that I am a UNC Tarheel fan (ACC) and enjoy watching college football more than pro?

I am not one of these chumps who dont know anything about college ball.

Also, how was Vince Young and Terrelle Pryor as passers in college? Garbage.

Yes, it is possible to be a garbage passer in college. The game is different than the pro's.

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

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

BTW,

Dont get me confused with finshady. I am not that guy.

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

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

Lets get this straight,

Logan Thomas completed less than 60% of his passes....it will only go down in the NFL.


Also, he never played TE and Va Tech. He was recruited as one (althought he played QB in high school) because he is 6'6, he has only played QB. Never TE.

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

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

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reppa,
>
> Do you realize that I am a UNC Tarheel fan (ACC)
> and enjoy watching college football more than
> pro?
>
> I am not one of these chumps who dont know
> anything about college ball.
>
> Also, how was Vince Young and Terrelle Pryor as
> passers in college? Garbage.
>
> Yes, it is possible to be a garbage passer in
> college. The game is different than the pro's.

I dont know why you keep trying to pull me into a debate, i always seem to make you look childish lol. Your examples of v.young and t.pryor are all running guys. Are you saying logan thomas is a scrambler? In my experience of debating with you every time you say a guy is garbage i find that you never watched them play and i will just assume this is the same.

I will educate you, a better comparison to logan thomas would be josh freeman (not young or pryor)... I have an idea, how about you watch him play this year and we can pick this debate up once you are a bit more educated on what you are saying.