made it about 1/2 thru and not impressed at all

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

ok made it thru the whole thing and I'm still unimpressed. what exactly is so great about this guy that screams "top 10 franchise QB"?

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

BTW, that game against LSU was like his 5th or 6th start.

Anywho,

Did you dig the second video I posted?

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

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

I thought the 30 yd scramble he did in the begining was pretty Nifty.......the Kid is athletic.

TCPF,

watch the 2nd video I posted...see what you think. Let me know.

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

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

What I see is most of the time he locks on to one receiver. I see him check down to his 2nd receiver a few times, but that's about it. Don't see any plays where he scans the whole field or checks down to a RB.

Look how Mobile he is though. He throws effortlessly on the run. Thats the stuff you can't teach.

He has talent no doubt. He needs to make better pre snap reads for blitzes. Looks like 90% of the time he throws to his primary receiver. Those 2 overthrows on passes in the flats I have seen him do that in another game. A large percent of the time he is throwing from shot gun. Another concern of mine is the 3 int games against good defenses. OK, OK State and Texas. Definately a lot of potential is there.

I prefer a QB that has at least 3 years of statistics that are impressive. Show me something that is "awe inspiring" ! Why waste a first round pick on potential ? I'm sick of potential .......

montequi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I see is most of the time he locks on to one
> receiver. I see him check down to his 2nd
> receiver a few times, but that's about it. Don't
> see any plays where he scans the whole field or
> checks down to a RB.


A couple things. Most college systems work this way. Cam Newton and Blaine Gabbert both ran "one read" systems, where they make just their primary read and then either check down or run. Weeden played in an offense that only reads one section of the field. This is something that every QB coming into the league needs to get better at.

Remember, the WCO is a lot of predetermined throws. It is a lot of 3 or 5 step drops, plant, and throw to a spot. Many, many plays have predetermined reads and the ball just goes where it is supposed to go. So, you will see a lot of that in Sherman's offense at A&M.

I think there are a few things to take away. One, Tannehill took just 9 sacks as a senior. So, while he needs to learn to read the blitz better, he had excellent pocket awareness and is very mobile to avoid the sack. Two, his ability to throw on the run is exceptional. The WCO calls for a lot of that, and it's a big reason why Polian called Tannehill an ideal WCO QB. And three, Tannehill is very intelligent. There are things he needs to learn, but he's a smart kid.

mizzou15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He has talent no doubt. He needs to make better
> pre snap reads for blitzes. Looks like 90% of the
> time he throws to his primary receiver. Those 2
> overthrows on passes in the flats I have seen him
> do that in another game. A large percent of the
> time he is throwing from shot gun. Another concern
> of mine is the 3 int games against good defenses.
> OK, OK State and Texas. Definately a lot of
> potential is there.

That's the important part. The fact that players who lack experience almost always get better as they gain experience.

The other way to look at Tannehill is that he has projectable development based solely on going from firt year starter the next year in the nfl.

The part we don't know about is the part that determines how high you can project his development. His brain.

As fans, we have no insight into that.

As a gm you have some but it's still in imperfect process.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2012 05:38AM by THE Truth.

Cam would look off to another receiver before locking onto his primary. I only saw 2 Gabbert games (was not that impressed). If we get Tannehill at 8 I would not go crazy but if we passed on him I would be ok w/ it.

rick1355 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I prefer a QB that has at least 3 years of
> statistics that are impressive. Show me something
> that is "awe inspiring" ! Why waste a first round
> pick on potential ? I'm sick of potential .......


When did parcells start posting here?

A QB coming out of college is going to be as good as the staff around him and the system he is put in. That goes for most players in the NFL. That is where we have failed as an organization in development and putting players in a spot where it highlights their talents.

rick1355 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I prefer a QB that has at least 3 years of
> statistics that are impressive. Show me something
> that is "awe inspiring" ! Why waste a first round
> pick on potential ? I'm sick of potential .......


Dude......thats really all the draft is. Potential. Others just have more , some you just can't see.

I just don't see Tannahide as a first round pick or as a good value pick. 3rd, 4th or 5th round is more where he should be taken. Your looking at 2 years to develope. "potentially" What a mess .......

mess?

Thats extremely far-fetched and blatantly negative thinking.

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

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

TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rick1355 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I prefer a QB that has at least 3 years of
> > statistics that are impressive. Show me
> something
> > that is "awe inspiring" ! Why waste a first
> round
> > pick on potential ? I'm sick of potential
> .......
>
>
> Dude......thats really all the draft is.
> Potential. Others just have more , some you just
> can't see.

But he means "he only has potential EVEN AMONG A CLASS THAT IS BY DEFINITION ONLY FULL OF PEOPLE WITH POTENTIAL."

The NFL channel had an analyst on last night. Did not catch his name.
He said that Tannehill should be second round, low first round at best. He was opposed to taking Tannehill in the top 10.

However, he was impressed with Tannehill's on the field thinking. He said Tannehill was not prone to rash snap judgements, had a great football mind and would make an excellent field general. Those qualities are important to me.

And, not to give anyone a heart attack but last year before the season ended, I had Tannehill on my want to draft list but as an intriguing 4th or later round pick.

I was amazed to see him sky-rocket up.

??

And also, Cam Newton was the number 1 pick, like Andrew Luck, based on his "potential."

And Cam Newton went to the PRO BOWL IN HIS rookie year, based on his "potential" while every analyst says that Tannehill will probably have to spend considerable time on the bench in his rookie season.

"Potentially" Tannehill might not pan out ..... Show me some QB's with similar stats, the low number of starting games etc.... Even his coaches put him at wide receiver from the QB position. That alone tells me enough about his potential ! His coach wanted him at WR instead of QB. Keep dreaming .... Fallow the the draft board hype instead of common sense. Dream a sweat dream ? Franchise QB ? LOL .....

Which is where he should be in his rookie season...just like ANY QB. None of them should be starting from day one...period. They all need to develop, no matter thier pre-draft pedigree.

Yeah, Ken but I know what you are trying to say but with most qbs drafted, they compete for the starting job right away whether they make it or not. How long did it take Henne?

With Tannehill, however, the rap is that by necessity he will need more seasoning on the bench for at least a year. It's different.