If I'm the GM I stay at #8 and hope Tanehill is there where I would take him. I'd do this not because of any issue with value because I believe that concept to be mostly BS. Unless that is you go way outside of the box with the pick. But because I value the picks we'd have to give away more than who we'd take at #3.

I see exactly the same chance for failure with RGIII that I see in Tannehill. I also don't value the winner of the Heisman trophy very highly because they are almost ALWAYS busts. I'd draft either player based upon not only thier physical skills which are very close IMHO. But, more importantly to me in this case...thier intelligence.

Experience to me would be a secondary consideration because neither one of these guy's would start for the Phins in 2012 if I was in charge...that would happen no earlier than 2013 unless all other options on the roster got hurt and missed the remainder of the year.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2012 07:53AM by Ken.

I can't say I do or don't believe in Tannehill. Anyone who is so sold on him that they'd move up to #3 is doing so soley based on potential of what he COULD be, not what he is now. Frankly, I don't think making a trade like that is smart.
And obviously there is a big difference between taking a guy at #8, and essntially taking the same guy at #8 plus a second round plus 2 third rounders (or a #1 next year).

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > berkeley223 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > gamble for RG3. Gamble for Luck. Gamble for
> > > someone who is not such a roll of the dice.
> > Don't
> > > gamble for this guy. Taking him at 8 is a
> > gamble
> > > enough. Do you really think any other team is
> > > going to trade up for him? Or that the Browns
> > are
> > > going to take him at #4? No they will not.
> >
> >
> > That are ALL a gamble. If you believe in a guy
> go
> > get him. If you sit on your ass and HOPE he
> falls
> > to you you are either the smartest guy in the
> > league or the dumbest.
> >
> > All it takes is one GM with bigger balls who
> sees
> > what you see in a player and you get scooped.
>
> > You can do that when you are hunting for a RB
> or
> > LB. but if you get to cute when it comes to
> > filling the single most important position in
> > sports you get 18 journeymen qb's in 13 years
> and
> > 1 playoff win.
>
>
> Then why not trade up for every player you
> "believe" in. you obviously believe in the player
> you take. If you want him that bad then why not
> always move up to be sure you get him? The answer
> is value, and what else could be there at your
> spot, and how likely is that guy to fall to you?
> All of this factors way against moving up to #3 to
> take Tannehill. Yes a QB is different but not so
> different that common sense needs to take a back
> seat.

Teams move up all the time, in every round to get guys they believe in. Just look at Daniel Thomas.

Qb isn't just "different" it's EVERYTHING in this league.

All the other positions don't matter by comparison.

Again, I'm not saying Tannehill is good or bad, that he will be a franchise qb or he won't. This is about HOW you acquire a franchise QB. The notion that "value" comes into play when it comes to selecting a franchise qb is absurd to me.

As a gm going into the draft you look at every qb in the draft. You evaluate all of them. Most you wouldn't draft at all. Some you would draft as a back up hoping they blossom into a starter. And a few fall into the category of future franchise qb, be it this year, next year or 3 years from now.

If you have a guy listed in that last category you don't worry about value or where you draft him, you worry about BEING ABLE to draft him.

The question with Tannehill is what category you slot him into. You seem to slot him into that middle category of a backup that you hope turns into a player in 5 years. I don't really have an opinion on him one way or the other.

I look at it this way: If you have him in that middle group he's at best a 2nd round pick, and I wouldn't touch him before the 3rd.

But if you have him in that first category, where you are willing to bet your job on him being your qb for the next 12-15 years, then you take him as EARLY as you possibly can.

In other words, you should be drafting the guys you assess as franchise qb's with your first pick. If you would take a guy like that at 8 or 15 then you are sold on his future and you shouldn't be afraid to move up for him. If you aren't sold on him enough to move up you shouldn't be drafting him in the first round unless you trade down.

You clearly aren't sold on Tannehill as a franchise qb. That's cool. Plenty of people who know more about this than we do agree with you. But plenty think he's the goods as well.

Can't wait to see how it plays out but I'm not going to be mad if we move up for him because of WHO we have involved in his evaluation.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't say I do or don't believe in Tannehill.
> Anyone who is so sold on him that they'd move up
> to #3 is doing so soley based on potential of what
> he COULD be, not what he is now. Frankly, I don't
> think making a trade like that is smart.
> And obviously there is a big difference between
> taking a guy at #8, and essntially taking the same
> guy at #8 plus a second round plus 2 third
> rounders (or a #1 next year).


Every single pick in the draft is based on potential and the likelihood a player will achieve that potential.

Every single one.

Nobody enters the nfl as a finished product. It's all best guess. Some guys are so talented they are easier to project and less risky. They are almost always selected in that group of 3-6 picks at the top of the draft.

After that it's gets riskier as you get deeper into the draft.

It's easy for us to sit back and argue value because mcshay says this or mayock says that...we have no skin in the game. Our multi million dollar jobs aren't tied to what we decide or what the pundits say. It's all bout what they do and the decisions they make.

So put yourself in their shoes for a minute.

You know that you can't win big or consistently in the nfl without a franchise qb and you know there isn't one on your roster.

Now watch the tape on Tannehill and decide (gun to you head) if he's not just the best guy available, but if he's a franchise qb for the next 12 years.

If you conclude he is that guy, then you'd be a fool to not do everything in your power to acquire him. And if you don't see him in that capacity you'd be a bigger fool wasting a 1st round pick on him, especially one in the top ten.

truth would you give up next year's first and this year's first and 2d to get Ryan Tannehill?

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> truth would you give up next year's first and this
> year's first and 2d to get Ryan Tannehill?


It's not about what I'd do. As I said, I don't have a strong opinion on him. I've watched what film I can find on him on the Internet. He doesn't "pop" for me the way RG3 did.

I get the same feeling from watching him that I got with Andrew luck. That is, he's not overly impressive but that could be because of the lack of talent around him. I like his athleticism, his footwork, his accuracy (especially on the move). Those are all obvious traits. I have no idea if he's wired correctly to be an NFL or west coast offense qb.

Add to that the fact that as a dolphin fan I haven't had to project a player into the west coast offense before and I'm even less sure of what he'll end up being.

But philbin and sherman don't have my limitations.

If they believe he's the next Aaron Rodgers and I'm Ireland then I make that trade.

If the think he could develop into A decent starter some day then I don't draft him before the 4th round.

If its my decision I trust the people I hired.

2 first rounds? 3 first rounds? if you think he is a franchise QB then you do whatever is necessary, right? but obviously there is a stopping point, and it is based on the likelihood this guy is actually going to be that. It would just suck to finally trade the farm for a QB it is for somone who started only 19 games, did not put up dominating stats, and who is the 3d best QB prospect in the draft. I have relunctantly come around to taking him at #8 but that is where it must end IMO.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2 first rounds? 3 first rounds? if you think he is
> a franchise QB then you do whatever is necessary,
> right? but obviously there is a stopping point,
> and it is based on the likelihood this guy is
> actually going to be that. It would just suck to
> finally trade the farm for a QB it is for somone
> who started only 19 games, did not put up
> dominating stats, and who is the 3d best QB
> prospect in the draft. I have relunctantly come
> around to taking him at #8 but that is where it
> must end IMO.

Do you think he's a franchise qb that will be here (barring injury or the myans being right) for the next 10-15 years?

If Blackmon is not considered elite among other highly touted WR's like Calvin Johnson etc then he is not worth the 8th pick. Not many WR's are worth it.

We just gave up Marshall and took a hit to do it so I don't see them using that high of a pick on Blackmon.

Marshall was a good receiver but he didn't really make a huge difference for our offense. This new offense is said to not depend on one go to guy so that is another point against. It seems that the system (and Q in Green Bay made no name receivers into big names as opposed to the other way around.

I agree that I would like Tannehill but don't want to give up two or three potential starters to get him....a POTENTIAL starter. I love his athleticism but wonder about intangibles...like the fact that Weeden beat just about every QB in this draft including RT.

Best case...we get a QB at 8 and get a WR, OL and pass rusher with the next three picks (2,3 and 3)....unless

We determine Weeden is not much different than RT and we use 8 on BPA and hope for Weeden in the 2nd round. That will be tough to determine as value drops off quick at the top. Prob more bang for the buck at QB even though he won't contribute for at least a year.

Pass rusher....potential at the top but also TOO many questions to justify #8.

OL....best guy will prob be gone and we've spent too many picks on OL.

WR....no value

The question is "who will make the biggest impact this year as more of a sure thing (which is how Ireland operates)....

For my money....that's David DeCastro. If he is even close to Steve Hutchinson then he will dramatically improve our entire line.

How about best best case scenario...

grab tannehil at 8 then trade our 2nd and 3rd to move back into first round and grab DeCastro.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 2 first rounds? 3 first rounds? if you think he
> is
> > a franchise QB then you do whatever is
> necessary,
> > right? but obviously there is a stopping point,
> > and it is based on the likelihood this guy is
> > actually going to be that. It would just suck
> to
> > finally trade the farm for a QB it is for
> somone
> > who started only 19 games, did not put up
> > dominating stats, and who is the 3d best QB
> > prospect in the draft. I have relunctantly come
> > around to taking him at #8 but that is where it
> > must end IMO.
>
> Do you think he's a franchise qb that will be here
> (barring injury or the myans being right) for the
> next 10-15 years?


I HOPE he is, just like I hoped John Beck was, just like I hoped Chad Henne was. But really I have no idea. And even Sherman/Philbin would just be guessing, bc they've seen him play only 19 college games as a QB. I don't want to take a guy like that at #3, following a trade up involving multiple high picks.

Especially b/c we'd be making this move out of desperation (come on, this guy was at best our 3d or 4th choice this offseason--had Flynn taken our lowball offer, there would be no Tannehill; same for Alex Smith and obviously Payton) and fear (that some team may be dumb enough to leapfrog us to take him---newsflash, this is just the rest of the league trying to PLAY us!)

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > berkeley223 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > 2 first rounds? 3 first rounds? if you think
> he
> > is
> > > a franchise QB then you do whatever is
> > necessary,
> > > right? but obviously there is a stopping
> point,
> > > and it is based on the likelihood this guy is
> > > actually going to be that. It would just suck
> > to
> > > finally trade the farm for a QB it is for
> > somone
> > > who started only 19 games, did not put up
> > > dominating stats, and who is the 3d best QB
> > > prospect in the draft. I have relunctantly
> come
> > > around to taking him at #8 but that is where
> it
> > > must end IMO.
> >
> > Do you think he's a franchise qb that will be
> here
> > (barring injury or the myans being right) for
> the
> > next 10-15 years?
>
>
> I HOPE he is, just like I hoped John Beck was,
> just like I hoped Chad Henne was. But really I
> have no idea. And even Sherman/Philbin would just
> be guessing, bc they've seen him play only 19
> college games as a QB. I don't want to take a guy
> like that at #3, following a trade up involving
> multiple high picks.
>
> Especially b/c we'd be making this move out of
> desperation (come on, this guy was at best our 3d
> or 4th choice this offseason--had Flynn taken our
> lowball offer, there would be no Tannehill; same
> for Alex Smith and obviously Payton) and fear
> (that some team may be dumb enough to leapfrog us
> to take him---newsflash, this is just the rest of
> the league trying to PLAY us!)

I couldn't care less what number option he was. My assessment of him would be on his merits only.

I think part of your issue is u thinks its a panic move to move up for him.

One thing Ireland has shown us is he doesn't panic or else we'd have Kyle orton or Matt flynn as our qb.

If we trade up it will be because they believe in this kid, not that they hope he works out. I'm ok with that.

Maybe, dolph, just maybe. But maybe again, the analysis ended with Flynn based on Flynn and Flynn alone. Maybe when they brought up the subject of Tannehill and looked into Sherman's eyes, Sherman said, "Are you kidding?"

I appreciate the points Truth has made but respectfully disagree in that after QBs 1 & 2, there is not enough value IMHO to give up anything more than the 8th spot.

Bottom line, if he's there I'm fine with taking him if we feel good about him. Too much mystery however (yes I understand Sherman knows more) due to his play time / experience to roll into multiple starter picks by moving up.

For this year, We can get some real playmakers for the team at 8, and should pick the best available at our slot.

Just to reiterate where I stand: I am OK with him at 8, hell if we traded up 2 spots at the cost of a 3d I could live with that but that's the end of it. We need to come out of this draft with so many things---WR, pass rusher, etc, we will need our 2d and 2 3ds, and we shouldn't be giving up future picks any more unless it's for an RG3 type (or a pick after the 3d rd)

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Word^^^^^

Phinjim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I appreciate the points Truth has made but
> respectfully disagree in that after QBs 1 & 2,
> there is not enough value IMHO to give up anything
> more than the 8th spot.
>
> Bottom line, if he's there I'm fine with taking
> him if we feel good about him. Too much mystery
> however (yes I understand Sherman knows more) due
> to his play time / experience to roll into
> multiple starter picks by moving up.
>
> For this year, We can get some real playmakers for
> the team at 8, and should pick the best available
> at our slot.


Do you believe he's a franchise qb?

If you do, ask yourself how easy it isto identify and acquire those guys.

If you don't, then ask yourself why you are ok with spending the 8th pick on a guy you don't believe in.

If you are unsure, which every fan should be, then pretend for a minute that you are sure and ask yourself "why on gods green earth I'd be hesitant to trade Daniel Thomas, John Jerry and Edmund gates for a qb that I feel will be my starter for the next decade and a half."

LOL. Who wants Danny Thomas and probably John Jerry and is willing to wait for the development of Gates. They're going to want DRAFT CHOICES both present and future.

Omar Kelly

I would love to say the Dolphins should pass on Ryan Tannehill in the first round and select Oklahoma State's Brandon Weeden, who would be a top 15 pick if he were 22-years old. But he's not, and I don't know enough about the west coast offense, and what it needs to make that call (unlike most, I'll admit that). Weeden gets lazy with his footwork, and almost always worked out of shotgun. That makes the evaluation for the west coast a little hard. West coast QBs must have good footwork I'm told

Take DeCastro in the 1st and Cousins in the second. The qb we draft is going to sit anyway. Why waste the #8 pick for someone who is going to warm his a** all season. Might as well get and develop Cousins in rnd two. At this point there are still doubts about Moore as a long term solution so we still could be looking at picking a qb early in the 2013 draft.

if we take another Qb in the 2d I will scream. Not to mention what will happen if we take a freaking Guard at #8.
Cousins has Henne written all over him.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Yep go ahead and draft a 2nd round rated qb at #8 just to make you feel better. Watch KC draft DeCastro and make the playoffs next year.

yes if KC makes the playoffs next year it will because of DiCastro. Just like Jake Long has led us to the playoffs the last few years. Come on man!

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

C'mon what we draft Tannehill and I can start planning my trip to see the Phins in the 2013 SuperBowl. Get Real. Finally solidifying our offensive line will take us farther than drafting a qb at #8 this year.

mizzou15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Take DeCastro in the 1st and Cousins in the
> second. The qb we draft is going to sit anyway.
> Why waste the #8 pick for someone who is going to
> warm his a** all season. Might as well get and
> develop Cousins in rnd two. At this point there
> are still doubts about Moore as a long term
> solution so we still could be looking at picking a
> qb early in the 2013 draft.

The only way you are ever going to draft a qb who ISN'T going to sit the first year is if you have the top pick.

If being NFL starter ready from day one is your criteria or part of your criteria you will NEVER draft a qb early enough to get a great one.

That leaves you in lottery land hoping to find the next drew Brees or Tom Brady later in the draft.

We've taken that approach for 20 years. Why on earth would you want to do that again?

If you can't get a franchise qb in round one forget qb. Odds are any qb you take after round 1 is a backup or will end up starting somewhere else in 5 years.

mizzou that plan has been such a failure around these parts for so long I can't believe you still want to follow it. Jake Long #1 overall, Pouncey #15, high pick on John Jerry, big $$ on Jake Grove and Smiley, first rounder on Vernon Carey, the list goes on an on. DiCastro may be great, or he may not be (he probably will be), but regardless OL can be found later in the draft and for less $$, and we have HUGE needs at QB, WR, pass rusher, etc etc

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Mizzou, I've been trying to get them to see that until I'm blue in the face.

It's all I can do to beat back the people who want us TO TRADE UP TO DRAFT TANNEHILL.


It's like a frantic feeding-frenzy. Despite the fact that we drafted Jake Long, an all pro, Pouncey who is clearly of all-pro caliber, but we still have holes in the O line, some people go ballistic at the thought of making this a line like we had during our perfect season years.

I know we need a QB but getting involved in a FRENZY will not help.

We have to keep cool heads.

Panicked-thinking most probably ends up to be wrong thinking.

How many GOOD decisions are made in a panic or in an atmosphere of "but we GOT TO DO IT! THERE'S NO TIME TO THINK."

And by the way, an offensive line is like a cup. Even if you have a teensy-tiny hole in the cup, eventually it won't hold water.

Therefore, Long and Pouncey are no good to us unless the rest of the o-line can keep rushers from putting our QB on his butt.