Another Ryan Tannehill Review

You know what would be worse than picking the wrong QB in the first? Not picking one at all. Then not only do you have almost no chance of having a future franchise QB on the roster (short of Moore or some long shot later draft pick surprising), but you further lose the fan base that has already held a demonstration over the organizations failure to land a QB even more. Even if you lack the ability to evaluate or project a QB's skills, it's hard to justify passing on a QB that even most detractors agree has elite skills and spent a year and half working in your offense especially after signing a coach, in large part, for his ability to develop QBs and after your owner promised that upgrading the QB position was a priority.

Actually, even picking the wrong QB wouldn't be that bad since the rookie salary cap lets you cut losses on first round busts more quickly or just keep them around since they aren't the huge salary cap burden they used to be. The rookie salary cap may result in more first round QBs being given time to develop. If that happens, I believe you'll see fewer 1st round QB busts and better overall QB play.

 

Two things:

1. Fact that it was a pro West Cosst Offense run by pro coaches makes Ryan's stats a little bit more honest. I mean the stats themselves I would insist are very good, especially when you account for his tendency not to take sacks, to run for extra yardage, and run for TDs. Very few fumbles I believe, only one lost on the year I think.

2. Receivers dropped 64 passes, which when looked on basis of completions-to-drops, is twice the NFL average. If they dropped even just an average number of balls, then at his YD/CMP rate and his TD/CMP rate we're talking 358 of 531 for 4099 yards, 32 TDs and 15 INTs. Not to mention some of those INTs were the result of those receivers' uncommon tendency to botch things.

 

One thing to keep in mind about the QB position, when you're thinking the Dolphins won't force or manipulate anything to get a QB.

The Dolphins have three QBs on roster. Two have contracts that only last through 2012, and the third is a UDFA that not even they have a lot of hope for.

You can convince yourself that the Dolphins can be 'fine' in 2012 between David Garrard and Matt Moore, but a General Manager projects rosters for future years as well as the present one, and the Dolphins are NOT 'fine' in 2013 at that position. They are quite literally bare at that position in 2013. They need a SIGNIFICANT quarterback.

 

How useful/important do you think Tanny's shorthand with and experience in Sherman's offense is, to the team? I'd think that when installing a brand new offensive system, having a QB that is ahead of the rest of the team is invaluable...or am I over thinking this? Its what I thought the main selling feature was for Flynn. Not too mention it would instantly put Tanny in a leadership role.

 

Fr me its not huge but for them i think it's a huge part of it.

 

Ok, so if you were GM, does Tanny's age, running ability & coach/system familiarity, offset the talent/ability deficiency he has when compared to Weeden?


or do I have to wait for the next Draft Winds article?

 

You know whats a bummer? To invest in a Luck or a Griffin and they become a bust, but you know what is maybe an even bigger bummer? Not drafting a promising QB with in your reach and he is drafted elsewhere and becomes elite. Such as Drew Breese or not drafting Dan Marino because of the bad Rumors and press he received his senior year. Maybe Tannehill won't be a franchise QB but it seems he gets more negative reviews on here than he does in the sports media. Maybe we shouldn't draft a quarterback but continue shopping backup quarterbacks and free agents, we should hit on one, one of these days.

 

IMO it's important to give the QB time to learn the offense. I think that when so many of these QBs are rushed in they end having to deal with learning the offense at the same time as their adjusting to the speed, getting used to receivers and getting experience. I believe that if you give the QB time to learn the offense first, the odds of him successfully navigating the rest increases considerably.

In terms of Tannehill, the experience in Sherman's offense helps that part. That experience may shorten how long he has to stay on the bench. I think it makes his 15 starts more valuable, arguably more valuable than a guy with 30 starts in a much less similar college system. It doesn't make his upside any better, though. Ultimately that's what your looking at. Does this QB have top 10 skills?

The other advantage for an evaluator is that it makes the projection easier. With many college QBs, your watching them do things they won't be doing in the NFL and guessing as to how they will be able to do the NFL things. With a guy like Tannehill or Luck there's much less guessing. You can see what NFL things they do well and what NFL things they don't do well. And then you make a determination if the things that QB doesn't do well can be learned. For example, I don't believe Tannehill throws with anticipation in certain situations. Specifically when he has to go through his progressions in the middle of the field. That area tends to be congested and many young or inexperienced QBs often wait to see the receiver break open before throwing it. IMO that is something that takes experience to improve on. In fact, that was one of the criticisms of Rodgers when he came out. (IMO that time on the bench was invaluable for him. I believe that if he had been thrown in immediately he would have thrown a bunch of INTs those first couple of years and been seen much like Alex Smith was/is).

 

Jeff Ireland has talked about in the past "manipulating the Draft" for a need. What he's referring to is trading up, or taking a guy knowing there are other players available you've got graded higher.

Last year he said the need at QB was no big enough to warrant manipulating the Draft. For him, manipulating the Draft would've meant trading up for their mancrush Jake Locker, or for their runner up Christian Ponder. It also could have meant taking Eyan Mallett significantly higher than where they had him graded. They needed to have QB listed as a "must" in order to justify those actions. They had tailback listed as a "must" hence the trading up for Daniel Thomas, but not QB.

Whether I disagreed with those priorities a year ago (I did), doesn't matter because the QB situation right now is different from a year ago. Both of the QBs they have now are free agents in 2013. Neither is even a potential "QB of the future" type. Right now, getting a QB is a MUST for them, because they don't even have one for 2013.

That means Jeff Ireland will manipulate the Draft in order to pick up a player at his MUST position. If he's worried Tannehill could get taken above #8, look for him to trade up. If that doesn't work out, look for him to take Weeden above where he and others have him graded.

 

I've said already I would aim for Weeden above Tannehill. What I mean is I would look to trade down for Weeden, pick up the extra value.

 

It all comes down to the evaluation. Last year I would not have agreed with trading up for Locker, Gabbert or Ponder. I simply didn't have them rated as highly. I have Tannehill rated higher than those guys and we also happen to have a higher pick (and more picks to use) so if we even have to trade up it would be less expensive than last year and it would be for a higher rated player. I still don't expect Cleveland to take Tannehill, so I'm not sure we would need to trade up (at most to #7 should another team try to jump us).

 

IMO it does. I would take Tannehill before Weedon, but I am a big Weedon fan.

 

IMO Cleveland will go with turning their secondary into a team strength and take Claiborne. Their defense has some nice pieces to it, and it's closer to winning games for them than their offense is, so I'd be looking to turn that unit into one capable of shutting teams down. Plus, in that division you have AJ Green and whomever Cincy pairs with him (which they could do with one of their 1st rounders), Antonio Brown & [likely] Mike Wallace, and Torrey Smith developing into a dangerous vertical threat, so it'd be wise for them to add Claiborne opposite Haden so there'd virtually always be a stud CB on the opponents best WR no matter how offenses try to line up, and then there's the talented Buster Skrine to develop at nickel corner. They have studs in Ward as SS and Jackson at LB. The front 4 is solid with the potential of being extremely good if DE Marcus Benard gets back to full health (had 7.5 sacks his sophomore year before missing all last season). So IMO their defense is a couple of quality draft picks away from being quite impressive. To not take advantage of that would be a grave mistake. Personally, I'd go Claiborne 1, Dre Kirkpatrick 1b (and move him to FS), Kirk Cousins 2, Greg Childs 3, running back 4a, linebacker or BPA 4b.

 

I strongly agree with this and don't understand why more people don't. Unless you're a team that's one player away from a SB, the draft is about long term value. You draft a guy that will have the most sustained success for your team. Ronnie Brown was a guy that came in and provided immediate help, but I can promise there isn't a single person out there that wouldn't go back in time and rather get Aaron Rodgers and have him sit on the bench a couple of years to get what he is today out of him.

 

I cannot understand why Cleveland wouldn't want him, if he is this good. If Tanny is an upgrade over Moore, then he also a definite upgrade over McCoy too.

 

Considering his low sack totals, and TAMU lacking any great players on their OL, I'd say too that is a big strength in his game.

 

Just because the Dolphins and Ireland, "manipulate", the draft to get a QB doesn't mean that they will end up drafting a QB which will be productive in the future. I happen to feel that the only two QB's in this draft who will be long term starters in the NFL are Luck and RG3. There is no way Ireland is going to , "manipulate", the draft in such a way that he can get one of these two QB's.

Obviously you view Tannehill or Weeden as, SIGNIFICANT quarterbacks the Dolphins should be interested in. I see both these QB's as second tier QB's who will eventually end up being backups on NFL teams. I do believe the Dolphins need to take a young QB in this draft but since they have no chance of drafting Luck or RG3, I feel that they can get Kellen Moore in the fourth or fifth round and he will be as effective in the NFL as Tannehill or Weeden.

I realize my opinion of Tannehill and Weeden is a minority opinion on this forum but I just don't get all the hype these two are receiving. As I have stated several times on here, if the Dolphins draft either Tannehill or Weeden, I hope the one they draft shows me I am wrong about him. Right now though, I would rather see the Dolphins draft another offensive lineman in the first round, instead of reaching for a QB who is really a second or third round talent, IMO.

 

Imo, Richardson is as close to a slamdunk as you can get. And with a team like Cleveland, he should be the easiest decision they've made in a long time.

 

If I were Cleveland I would take him, but there are a couple arguments why people think they won't. There is a thought that they still like McCoy and want to give him another shot with some talent around him. There's also a school of thought that there are 6 blue chip prospects in this draft: Luck, RGIII, Richardson, Kalil, Blackmon, and Claiborne; and that they badly need so much, that they shouldn't pass up one of those elite talents.

 

But they're gonna lose that b/c Sheldon Brown is 33.

The quickest way to being successful is developing a team strength. Defense is Cleveland's closest thing. If they sacrifice the potential of the defense in order to add Richardson, they still lose games.

They have a better chance at building a sustainable defense capable of winning games for them than they do an offense capable of outscoring opponents. Look at Houston. What did they accomplish without a great defense despite having one of the NFL's best WRs (Johnson), RBs (Foster), and receiving TEs (Daniels) to go along with a top 8 QB (Schaub) and a solid Oline? All that firepower and they went 6-10 in 2010. So respectfully, if Houston's offense isn't capable of carrying a team to more than 6 wins, I highly doubt one featuring McCoy, no #1 WR, no great TE, a spotty Oline, but with Trent Richardson added will fare better than Houston.


Cleveland won't be capable of going to go toe to toe with the high scoring offenses of the league, Trent Richardson or not.
Think of Sun Tzu and the 'Art of War'.

(IE: if you have an inferior offense that averages 19pts/game, avoid offensive battles with a league that averages 23 pts/game; instead hit them with a great defense that's capable of either engaging or dividing them. Go with what you are rather than trying to be something you're not. If you're on the verge of becoming a great defense, then become one; if you're a great defense on the verge of being compromised, take measures to prevent it. Building up a weakness at the expense of a strength or potential strength isn't conducive toward success.)

(therefore, nullify AJ Green; take away Baltimore's vertical aspect of Flacco's game including Torrey Smith which allows you to focus attention on Rice; and counter Pitt's vertical strategy with Ben, Wallace, and Brown.)

 

Considering the Browns won't have the option of the first three, that leaves the latter 3 plus Tannehill as possibles. I'd consider Claiborne to be more highly ranked among corners heading into the draft over the past ten years, than Blackmon is among WRs. RB has become a more fungible position in recent years, and there are several very good prospects they could get a chance to draft in the late 1st or in the 2nd. Teams mostly take the RBBC route and do not draft runners high as often.
Like Todd has pointed out a few times, Sheldon Brown is getting long in the tooth and has eroding skills. They could take Claiborne and have the best set of corners in the league with he and Haden. Then take a WR at 22, and perhaps Weeden in the 2nd.

 

Depends on who you ask, that's why.

 

That's not the same thing. Indy's not even close to having an average defense, let alone a great one. There's a big difference between Cleveland's defense (and it's potential) compared to Indy's. Indy's offense and defense both suck, so drafting a franchise QB in Luck is obviously the quickest way to help build a strength.


It's a little different when you have a good idea of where your future strength lay, and an aging & terrible defense isn't it [in Indy]. In Cleveland, it's quite obvious that they're onto something with that defense. It certainly wasn't their offense that beat Brady.

Indy: poor offense, poor defense. Draft Luck and the offense becomes the future strength if you can build around him properly.
Clev: poor offense, good defense. Draft Richardson and the offense's potential still doesn't overtake the defense as the team's strength. Addressing a poor offense at the expense of a good defense is a quick way to end up with an average offense and an average defense, and an average team isn't a playoff team. what you're suggesting is virtually the same strategy Parcells took in Miami (against what I suggested in the forum), and look where it got us--- sub .500 b/c each year we focused on building up a weakness rather than establishing and reinforcing a strength.

Teams like Balt didn't become a successful long-term team by constantly trying to build up their weaknesses at the expense of their strength (defense). If they took the approach you're recommending, they would've become average. Ditto with the Giants. If NY addressed their weaknesses rather than repeatedly bolstering and reinforcing their pass rush, they likely don't win 2 SBs. And ditto as well for the Packers. If they addressed their weaknesses rather than reinforcing their strength (the passing game), they would've never drafted Aaron Rodgers or Jordy Nelson (with Favre, Jennings, Driver, and Jones on the roster). The Steelers wouldn't spend a 1st rounder on Ziggy Hood & 2nd on Jason Worilds with Aaron Smith & Harrison rostered, but Pitt knows the strength of their team is defense, and they also know they have to reinforce & preserve this strength at all costs. Great teams build around their strengths; poor ones build around their weaknesses. Building around your strength is virtually a universal strategy for creating success.

 

If you were making the call for Cleveland, would you take Tanny at 4?

 

No.

 

Two questions then:

1. Who would you take if you were them?

2. Would you take Tannehill at 8 if you were Jeff Ireland?

 

Clairborne or Richardson would be the wiser choice at #4.

1. See my above reply

2. Yes, I would but I'm no Guru but I might be tempted to take Clairborne over Tannehill if he was still there & no, I wouldn't take Richardson over Tannehill.

 

1. Richardson.

2. No.

 

I said earlier I would take Tannehill at 4 if I were Cleveland. That's if I came in this year, with a clean slate. If I'm Holmgren I take Blackmon then Weeden. That sets up your passing game to potentially be up in the top teir pretty quickly. Not only do I think very highly of both of those players, but their chemistry is already fantastic. Come back and get a Lamar Miller or Doug Wilson in the 2nd round and your offense is in fantastic shape. You can then build your defense in the next offseason.

 

I honestly think Clev takes Richardson with the #4 & Weeden at #22 & I agree with you on the RBS in the 2nd rd.

 

I don't see any way the Dolphins will have the choice of Claiborne/Richardson or Tannehill. If either of those two fall, it's because Tannehill was taken before we pick. The only exception is if Tampa surprises and goes with Keuchly, which IMO would not be a bad pick. I think that guy is going to be a stud.

 

You just don't like Tannehill, or you don't think the value is there?

 

I agree about Richardson, but I think they stick with McCoy at QB. Maybe they take a developmental guy later, but my gut says they don't take a QB in round 1.

 

Latter.

 

That's interesting to me. So you're a BPA guy and don't factor in positional value too heavily into your "board"? Because I know you have said you'd be okay with Reiff, and to me that would be the opposite of my thinking. I think if you need a QB and you feel Tannehill can be a franchise guy, you have to pull the trigger. It's just too hard to find those types of QBs and they're just too important to a team's success.