I find all this talk this time of the year about who is and isn't worthy of being a top ten pick or who is worthy of going in a certain spot but not worthy of being picked a few spots higher than that, to be fascinating.

I've always felt that each draft has a top tier of 3-7 guys who are clearly ahead of the rest of the pack for one reason or another.

After that the next 20-40 players are all about the same with "beauty" being in the eye of the Ybeholder.

Berk's comment about Tannehill falling to mid 1st round got me thinking about why he perceives that as a negative reaction to his ability and not just a market fluctuation based on need. I don't think anyone here considers Tannehill to be in that top tier with luck, rg3, kalil and Richardson. He seems to be in that next group of players.

And that got me wondering why he's a good pick at 12 or 15 but not 8.

Here are the last ten picks in each of those spots (8, 12 , 15):

'11 - jake locker, Christian ponder, pouncey.
'10 - McClain, Matthews, Pierre-Paul.
'09 - Monroe, Moreno, Cushing
'08 - Harvey, clady, Albert
'07 - j. Anderson, lynch, timmons
'06 - whitner, ngata, hill
'05 - rolle, merriman, d Johnson
'04 - d hall, vilma, m Clayton
'03 - gross, Kennedy, mcdougle
'02 - r Williams, w Bryant, haynesworth

In almost every draft the player taken at 8, the guy with the perceived higher value ended up being worse than the guy taken 4 or 7 spots later.

I think this illustrates that all this hype about a guy being unworthy of #8 but a good selection 5-10 picks later has zero to do with how good a player is or isn't. that all these rankings are just as subjective as the are inaccurate.

Beauty is CLEARLY in the eye of the beholder and in most cases a guy taken 12 or 15 would have been MORE than worthy of being a top 10 pick or even 8th.

my problem with RT is not that the question is whether he should go at 8 or 15. There are very strong arguments that viewed objectively, he is a late first rounder/early second rounder at best. That is certainly how he was projected at the end of this past season. hype and analysis pushed him all the way up to where some are floating the idea of him going at #3 overall. Same thing with Christian Ponder last year. I don't think anyone thinks he was worthy of going at 12---but since this is a QB league and teams are desperate for them (as are we), that's what happens.

None of this is to say I'd be pissed if we took him at 8. We DO need a QB and we gotta take one high eventually. I just wish the one we finally do take had a bit more of a college career that merited such a high pick.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Kinda funny you bring this up today, Greg Cosell has been tweeting about this very same thing all morning.

Greg Cosell ? @gregcosell
Reason I asked re: ranking NFL QB relates to Tannehill + concept of "reach". If Tannehill becomes Schaub, is he worth taking in top 10?

Greg Cosell ? @gregcosell
Remember teams make these decisions w/o access to result. Is Tannehill, or Ponder for that matter, a "reach" if they become top 12 QBs?

Greg Cosell ? @gregcosell
Consensus seems to be Ponder drafted too high. How do we know? What of he becomes top 10-12 QB. Still drafted too high? What's too high?

Greg Cosell ? @gregcosell
Where is teh tradeoff when drafting a QB? Is you believe a QB can become one of top 10-12 QB in NFL, is he worth drafting in top 5?


It got me to thinking (I almost started a thread about it), if we do take Tannehill #8, what kind of a career would he have to have to not be called a bust? Would an avg top 10 ranking do it? top 5? Obviously the easy answer is a Super Bowl win, but by that grading scale, wouldn't Marino be considered a bust? Not sure there is right/wrong answers, just got me wondering.

Tannehill is a "project" pick. You never pick a "project player" in the first round. To much hype and not enough stats to warrant a first round pick. It's pretty simple.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kinda funny you bring this up today, Greg Cosell
> has been tweeting about this very same thing all
> morning.
>
> Greg Cosell ? @gregcosell
> Reason I asked re: ranking NFL QB relates to
> Tannehill + concept of "reach". If Tannehill
> becomes Schaub, is he worth taking in top 10?
>
> Greg Cosell ? @gregcosell
> Remember teams make these decisions w/o access to
> result. Is Tannehill, or Ponder for that matter, a
> "reach" if they become top 12 QBs?
>
> Greg Cosell ? @gregcosell
> Consensus seems to be Ponder drafted too high. How
> do we know? What of he becomes top 10-12 QB. Still
> drafted too high? What's too high?
>
> Greg Cosell ? @gregcosell
> Where is teh tradeoff when drafting a QB? Is you
> believe a QB can become one of top 10-12 QB in
> NFL, is he worth drafting in top 5?
>


That's what I'm getting at. If there are a bunch of guys with similar ratings how is one a reach before you determine if he's a bust or not?


>
> It got me to thinking (I almost started a thread
> about it), if we do take Tannehill #8, what kind
> of a career would he have to have to not be called
> a bust? Would an avg top 10 ranking do it? top 5?
> Obviously the easy answer is a Super Bowl win, but
> by that grading scale, wouldn't Marino be
> considered a bust? Not sure there is right/wrong
> answers, just got me wondering.

Good question. How do you define who is and isn't a draft bust?

As far as determining value, i look at qb this way:

I'd ask myself if I was willing to bet my career on a guy being a franchise qb. If the answer to that question is "yes" and I needed a franchise qb I'd take him with my first pick no matter where it was or I'd try to move up to get him.

If my answer was "no" I wouldn't draft him prior to the 5th round.

I suppose I consider a franchise qb to be a guy that barring injury is a top 10 every year and who I'd be willing to give big money to keep once his rookie contract is up.

if we pick a QB in the top 10, I expect a Pro Bowler, or I will consider him a failed pick.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if we pick a QB in the top 10, I expect a Pro
> Bowler, or I will consider him a failed pick.

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

Pro bowler? How often?

Don't forget, there are a lot of great QBs in the NFL and not all of them can make the Pro Bowl.

If Miami doesn't think Tanney could take the Fins to the promised land then they won't pick him (especially at 8). If they do grab him, I am hoping that they do have confidence in him, not just that they need that franchise guy and hope he is the one.

But....how many times is Miami going to draft a QB in the 2nd round and fail? I, personally, am tired of that. If they have the conviction on Tanney, then grab him.

However, again, I don't necessarily think he must end up in the Pro Bowl. If he can get the job done and become the franchise guy, then they made the right pick and worth #8.

he's gotta make at least 1 pro bowl and be on the cusp for 5 years or more.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if we pick a QB in the top 10, I expect a Pro
> Bowler, or I will consider him a failed pick.


Would you give up #8 for Matt Ryan right now?, Matt Shaub?, Jay Cutler?
(and please dont turn this into an "I hate Tannehill because" thread, this is more of generalized questions)

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > if we pick a QB in the top 10, I expect a Pro
> > Bowler, or I will consider him a failed pick.
>
>
> Would you give up #8 for Matt Ryan right now?,
> Matt Shaub?, Jay Cutler?


Yes
Yes
And, yes

Yes
No
No

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dolphaholic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > berkeley223 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > if we pick a QB in the top 10, I expect a Pro
> > > Bowler, or I will consider him a failed pick.
> >
> >
> > Would you give up #8 for Matt Ryan right now?,
> > Matt Shaub?, Jay Cutler?
>
>
> Yes
> Yes
> And, yes


Berk, what does this tell you? Particularly about his preference for Tannehill as well.

It tells me that ..........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2012 09:35AM by ChyrenB.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes
> No
> No


No to schaub? Is that injury related?

Cutler I get, even if at 28 he has been to 1 pro bowl and on the cusp of 1 or 2 others, has completed 61% of his passes for a career 84.5 qb rating and. 1.36:1 td to int rate.

I feel that Schaub and Cutler have maxed out, just below the pro Bowl level. Schaub has some big time weapons but never was truly dominant, though he is no doubt a very solid QB. Cutler I just don't really like, he's never impressed me. Ryan at least has some additional upside IMO, and he's played better than the other 2 anyway. For the #8 pick, I'd like more than what we've seen from Cutler and Schaub---plus those guys have been around for a few years already, so yes age and injury history plays into it as well (both have been injured as recently as last season).

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

This discussion is just silly.

The only things that matter here are;

1. Is a player your franchise recognizes as one they like available at the spot you pick...THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.

2. Will that player be an immediate starter. For every position EXCEPT QB this is a great thing to strive for.

3. Will that player require time to develop into a starter...This is actually desireable for QB's since the ALL need to develop.

4. If #3 applies, what is the potential of that player once he does...this is the really interesting factor and the one that causes the most consternation.

5. If required. is your franchise willing to trade up for that player...a great indicator of how much he is really valued by the respective franchise.

6. Will that player actually be available for you to pick if you trade down to get more picks...a huge risk most of the time IF you are looking at a higher echelon, or otherwise desirable player.

The concept of VALUE is meaningless because it applies differently to each individual team. It cannot be applied accross the board as a universal concept or standard. Because each team's roster is different, and therefore, their needs are different, as is what they desire. Even when talking about the same position the value of the players currently at, or being looked at, will be different to each team.

Value can only be properly quantified with information we as fans, and even the analysts do not have access to because the teams are not giving away their true plans.

Past drafts and where players were taken really mean nothing.

In the end, if your team likes the player they take him...if not, they don't. People don't like drafting a player because of potential but in the end it's all we really have as a judge...regardless of who, what, or when.

If YOU are drafting a player based upon anything other than the future potential of that player you are lying.

Tannehill has great potential, regardless of whether you think he did enough during his time in college or not. That alone, is enough justification for taking him at #8 "IF" the Phin's in charge, want him that is.

OK berk and Truth, how about
Rivers
Romo
Flacco

#8 for them??????

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK berk and Truth, how about
> Rivers
> Romo
> Flacco
>
> #8 for them??????


Hell yes
Absolutely
And, no

You didn't ask me dolph but ill answer anyway.

rivers- hell yes
romo- no too old
flacco- no not good enough

dolphin1423 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You didn't ask me dolph but ill answer anyway.
>
> rivers- hell yes
> romo- no too old
> flacco- no not good enough


Didn't mean to exclude anybody, berk and Truth just seemed to be the ones interested in an actual discussion on a very interesting topic IMO.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK berk and Truth, how about
> Rivers
> Romo
> Flacco
>
> #8 for them??????


without a doubt
probably but I'd have some doubts
not a chance

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

With the obvious "HELL YES" list being
Brady
Rodgers
Bress
Manning
Manning
Stafford
Vick
Rothlisberger
(I know i'm forgetting someone) plus the 6 I already listed, who's left? Would you give up #8 for Bradford?
Is/was C Palmer a franchise QB?, Alex Smith?
IMO, Smith is slightly better then Fitzpatrick & Sanchez, no?

I would give up #1 pick for Sam Bradford. I think he will be better than Cam Newton and RG3. Barely.

IMO, the best QB's to come out the last 4 years are as such...

1. Sam Bradford
2. Cam Newton
3. RG3



Anywho... Hey guys, would you give up the #8 for Matt Stafford? Should be a definate yes.

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

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

I would not give up a #1 for Vick. He is old, injury prone, and i'm not sure how successful he could be outside of philly and all their weapons, unique blocking scheme, etc.

I got to disagree with you on that one aqua.

1a. Luck
1b. RGIII
3. Matt Ryan
4. Matt Stafford
5. Sam Bradford

I'm basing it on how good they were as a prospect coming out college not based on their progression upon reaching the NFL. Obviously Cam has progressed rapidly, Bradford has progressed in fits, Ryan progressed but has since hit a wall, and all Stafford needed to do was get on the field. They all have huge potential but it's hard to predict how quickly they reach their potential or if they do reach their full potential (which is largely based on coaching and surrounding players).

I have no clue how you guys can list Luck and RG3 without them even throwing a pass yet?????

Aqua, I agree Stafford is a hell yes.

What about

Josh Freeman?
Andy Dalton?
Jake Locker?

Dolph, I based my list on how good of a prospect I though each were coming out of college. I based nothing on NFL production and progression. So I looked back to how I viewed Ryan, Stafford, and Bradford when they were only prospects.

dolphin1423 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dolph, I based my list on how good of a prospect I
> though each were coming out of college. I based
> nothing on NFL production and progression. So I
> looked back to how I viewed Ryan, Stafford, and
> Bradford when they were only prospects.


Yeah, I thought about that after I typed it, I would for sure give up the #8 pick for Luck/RG3, I was kinda mixing my lists of who you would trade #8 for and who the top 12 to 15 current QBs are, my bad.

I agree about Stafford, I'd take him over Bradford in a heart beat, i'm just not seeing it yet with Bradford.

because they got a boat load of picks for RG3. They'd be lucky to get one #1 for Bradford given his injury history, contract, and subpar season last year.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Bradford will be elite. Give him a chance, a weapon, and time...he will prove. Just watch.

Stafford has Calvin Johnson. Who does Bradford have? Seriously...name a WR from that team.

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

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