Ireland is going to do what he is going to do.

However, if you hit on a Qb, your team is instantly upgraded, there are few positions that cannot be upgraded without using a #1 pick on them.

 

Nope

 

I hope for the love of the football gods, Browns please draft Tannehill. Trade with the Rams, fall to 6 and take Tannehill. Please be someone else to make the big mistake in the first round for once. If Tanny goes, that leaves us an extra top ten player to choose from. Our pick is now worth more to more teams. Blackmon will not fall. Claiborne or Richardson becomes possibility. I would be fine with Claiborne not Richardson. I think our RB stable is fine. If we traded back and got another 2nd I would be happier.

 

If we could have gotten a sure fire starting QB in the draft or FA I'd be thrilled. But, to use a first round pick just to have another QB to compete for the spot is not smart IMO with all the holes we need to fill. Start Moorse and draft him some help.

 

Hell, bleeping yes we want Tannehill.

 

If philbin does.

 

There's more than just one of us on this board. For clarification. Carry on.

 

No, not in the first. :)

 

I really believe that if we pass on him he might make it to our second pick. Only threat being Cleveland.

 

I just don't know if Tannehill is enough of a sure thing to spend a top 10 pick on. I know he shows promise but only starting 19 games, is there enough promise there to justify that high of a pick?

 

Like I said in the other thread, I wont completely eliminate the possibility we could trade down a few slots and still get him but KC, Cleveland (at 22 or a move up from there) among a few other teams all worry me. That alone makes me say just take him at 8. However like we discussed previously Coples wouldnt upset me either. :)

 

I get what you're saying, but if your team believes Tannehill is the long term answer at QB, you simply don't pass on him to fill holes at less significant positions with the thinking that a franchise QB will fall in your lap the following year.

It's not every year we have a top 10 pick, so if we find ourselves with one during a year that also features a franchise talented QB at that pick, you take him b/c there's no guarantee the stars will align that way in the future.

 

I like Coples versatility, which is Seymour-like as I've stated in past. I don't think he's a 12 sack a year guy, but with his versatility and physical dominance, he's worth the pick to me.

 

If we draft well we don't have to look at our 1st rounder as if it's the only pick we have. Ireland could very well clean it up with a draft that isn't hamstrung with missing picks. I'm actually excited about the type of talent we might bring in having all our picks plus an extra 3rd.

 

Unless you're at the absolute top of the draft and have a chance at Luck or Griffin III, IMO you're best served moving down and picking up extra picks in the second and third rounds. Those are the rounds where the talent is at. And someone will drop.

 

that's how I feel. IMO he doesn't have to be a yearly double digit sack guy to be an impact player who makes your defense better.

 

I think he could be with Wake on the other side and Odrick in the middle. His guy isn't going to get a lot of help.

 

It is mind boggling to me how Tannehill is rated so high...by anyone....

 

Yeah. Worst comes to worst he can play WR and I hear great things about his family. They put on a great spread for the Fourth of July.

 

you mean Ireland is gonna do exactly what Sherman tells him to do.

 

that's unfortunate.... for you. Does it happen to make you feel like you're missing something?

 

Wow, I'm surprised you know so much about his family but so little about him as a QB.
You'd think they'd at least talk to you about him some while passing the casserole. Modesty. Gotta respect it.

 

If you're constructing a franchise QB from scratch but have to balance out all the individual traits so that you can't simply give everything a 100 rating, he might be one version you end up with. Franchise caliber brains, leadership, extreme desire, dedication, perseverance; absorbs info quickly and more importantly- quickly applies what he learns; takes well to coaching; teammates will like playing with him.... and for him. Will likely be best friends with the film room and an eventual coach on the field. Once he's more seasoned & experienced at QB to where he can focus more on the roles/jobs of others, I'm guessing his leadership ability and command of an offense will ascend to the level you'd expect from a SB caliber QB.

Then there's his natural ability which is equally as good. But you only requested "a" reason, so I only listed the mental aspect, except I broke it down into sub reasons.

IMO he has enough of both to cause you to ignore concerns related to his inexperience and draft him hoping he becomes what his talent suggests.

 

What I'm saying is---- he's talented enough to not pass on just b/c his inexperience leaves a few questions unanswered. In this case, his potential reward is worth the risk of any potential failure.

 

I really don't want any part of tannehill I think hes a great athlete but hes just way to raw atm hes probably 2 years min from even being able to start in the NFL. If we really feel were in full rebuild mode then its not an awful pick but hes going to take a lot of coaching before he can even consider being NFL starter worthy IMO.

 

I don't think that Cleveland takes Tannehill. I expect that he'll make it to 8 and IMO he is a far better prospect than the QBs that went at 8,10 and 12 last year. I think he would be best served by sitting a year, but if he does that, I feel he has the potential to be another Rodgers.

 

If this FO feels as if Tanny is THEE guy then yes, draft him at 8.

However, I just don't see him being thee guy. I'm not a pro scout though, so, we'll see.

 

The thing that most worries me most about drafting Tannehill is the fact that ToddsPhins is so high on him. I remember him praising this other guy that didn't work out. :tongue2:

I do like all the things he said about him being a guy that seems like he has the mental aspect of the game and is coachable. I'm looking forward to seeing what Moore can do with this coaching staff. If we do select Tannehill, please let him ride the pine until he is ready. How ever long that is.

 

I have to say that although I was not happy and am not happy with the Garrard signing I guess it does go someway to addressing the QB spot making WR a high(er) priority. . Although as Philbin said the OL needs to be better to improve QB play. . now, they have tried to go someway to address the line issue.. so if you read between the chatter there you maybe see that they are comfortable at QB and will address WR early. Blackmon is clearly the best guy in this draft but I dont think we get him so I am guessing it will be possibly Floyd?

However with all that said. . Garrard is 34 and sat out a year and is in competition with Matt Moore who surprised last season. Both are out of contract after next season and this QB need - will and HAS to be addressed early in order to gain our long term solution to the carousel that is the Miami QB dilemma and finally making us relevent again. . and in that respect im still not overly sold that we dont pick up a QB with our #8 pick regardless of who we have sat on our roster currently . after all the WR depth is better than the QB depth and Philbin has said he does not believe in a #1 WR but wants to spread it about to 'the hot hand' and scheme the WRs according to whom we are playing...and Ireland goes to see Tannehill at the pro day tomorrow. . just sayin'

 

With Brandon "butter fingers" Marshal and a weak o-line Moore was ranked 12th. You guys really think we should throw away a 1st round pick for a guy that MIGHT be better than Moore?

 

If you're sold on him, then yeah. You can say that about every position and every pick. If we thought that way, there'd be no draft.

 

All players you draft MIGHT be better than the player they are replacing. Nothing is guaranteed. Not even Andrew Luck.

 

Of coarse, I just think he's a bigger risk than Coples, Fleener or even Floyd.

 

:yes:yes, we really want Tannehill!

 

This, thank you. Tannehill at 8 is only a slight reach IMO, one that's palatable, unlike Ponder at 12 & Locker at 8 IMO.