As a follow up to CK’s suggestion that the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] rounder Minnesota gave up for Bradford was evidence of the shocking prices teams might be willing to pay if a solid, young QB hit the market, I figured I’d look at the league as it stands right now and attempt to respond to what may have been implied about the potential value of Ryan Tannehill—or at least what most of us probably starting wondering. ;)
Looking at QBs around the league:
I was surprised to find that there may not be quite as much interest in Ryan Tannehill as some may have initially assumed if he were to hit the trade block. Here’s how I would break down the other 31 NFL teams:
7 have made big commitments at QB in the last couple years: BUF, HOU, TEN, DEN, PHI, TB, and LA
6 have reliable options that are as productive as Tannehill: JAX, WAS, DET, NYJ, ATL, KC
6 have good, young QBs who they like a lot: IND, CIN, OAK, CAR, MIN, and SEA
8 have proven veterans: NE, PIT, SD, BAL, NYG, NO, GB, ARI
4 may be primed for a change due to potential instability: CLE, DAL, CHI, SF
It seems as though Dak Prescott is the heir apparent behind Romo, so I think we can discount DAL for the time being. Knowing that, it seems like you’d be forced to either settle for what CLE is willing to pay or try and convince one of the other two that Tannehill might be an upgrade over what they have. While that sales pitch could work in SF, I don’t know if it’d work in Chicago where they’d probably be happy to roll with Cutler for the time being. Despite the fact that Tannehill may be viewed as marginally better than Cutler, it’s doubtful they’d view him as being a huge step forward. Some may be thinking about KC and I’d respond in the same way.
As a final note, some of the league’s elite QBs are getting a little long in the tooth (i.e. Brady, Brees and Rivers). More importantly, some of those teams have struggled recently and might be interested in rebuilding. Nevertheless I don’t see a team amongst them that’d be willing to pay a premium price for a guy like Tannehill in order to force the current veteran and fan-favorite out. Besides, that doesn’t really jive with the idea of rebuilding anyhow.
So I think it comes down to CLE and SF.
A look at Cleveland:
Keep in mind that Cleveland traded out of the #2 pick last year because (a) they didn’t like Carson Wentz enough and (b) they were able to amass a good deal of picks. They currently have two first round picks and two second round picks heading into 2017. They are in a position to wheel and deal having picked up the Eagles’ first rounder and the Titans second rounder. Both should be top-20 picks in their respective rounds.
Personally, I think that passing on Wentz last year makes Cleveland more likely to draft a QB this year but some would say it indicates the team wants to avoid risk so that they can continue to add talent around the roster. I think they just want to be careful and get it right, meaning they may not value Tannehill (a limited QB who’s a potential journeyman) as highly as a developmental prospect in the draft (i.e. Watson, Kelly, etc.) who could have higher upside in their eyes.
Then again, Hue Jackson might see Tannehill as his next Andy Dalton—a solid guy who under the right coaching could break out. There are some parallels there. This would also be a quicker route to legitimacy for the Browns as a franchise inside the tough AFC North. I think in the end it simply comes down to whether Cleveland wants to spend a 1[SUP]st[/SUP] rounder on their favorite prospect or whether they would consider trading that same pick for Tannehill. Knowing the Dolphins are going to be pushing for as many picks as they can get, it might be cheaper, easier and altogether more alluring for Cleveland to simply draft a QB and use their other top picks for more good prospects to fill out that roster. After all, that's probably what I would do in their situation.
A look at San Francisco:
SF doesn’t have the excess picks that Cleveland does but they are a team that seems appealing to me, at least from the perspective of a seller. First, it’s hard to believe that Chip Kelly wouldn’t view Tannehill as an upgrade over Kaepernick and Gabbert. Second, Tannehill’s familiarity with (and 2014 success working in) Bill Lazor’s offense may also play into the team’s consideration. Third, Chip Kelly traded for Bradford, an oft-maligned but intellectually-gifted QB, meaning he could be enticed to do it again or may simply prefer it outright to working with younger, less experienced guys. Four, this sort of trade would be ideal for the Dolphins who would be shipping Tannehill not only outside AFC, but all the way to California where east-coast fans would rarely see him play.
I would also note a couple additional factors that have more to do with ego than football but which may play a role. First, the tough NFC West division would allow Miami to minimize the risk of Tannehill having major success (i.e. making them look stupid for trading him). Second, it’s fathomable that SF’s young front office might ship out the outspoken Kaepernick the same way they did Harbaugh (who was also a thorn in their side) in hopes of bringing in a figure they know will fall in line and say the right things—enter Ryan Tannehill. It’s a believable narrative that goes along with the more legitimate football-related reasons above.
Drawing Conclusions:
(1) There are not a half-dozen teams that would be lining up to hand Miami a host of picks for Tannehill. That fantasy seems unreal. The truth is that the vast majority of teams have an option that is just about as good. In reality, there would probably be mild interest coming from 2 or 3 teams.
(2) If 20-some odd NFL teams would pass based simply on the fact they don’t view Tannehill as that much of an upgrade, I think we should accept that it just might say something about him. To be honest, even if the Jets picked him up in favor of re-signing Fitzpatrick for example, I wouldn’t be all that worried about facing Tannehill twice a year. That’s the Gods-honest truth.
(3) I think the best shot to trade Tannehill would be targeting Chip Kelly and the 49ers. It makes sense both on the field and off.
(4) There appear to be 3 teams who might seriously look at QBs in the near future: CLE, SF and CHI. Since Cutler is there in Chicago, I don’t see them as a real threat, so I think Miami (should they choose to throw themselves into the mix) would be fighting only CLE and SF for “their guy.” That means that if Miami were able to trade Tannehill away to one of those teams, it would mean the Dolphins were one of only two teams looking at QBs.
That’s interesting to me because assuming you got a 1[SUP]st[/SUP] round pick for Tannehill, it indicates that Miami would stand a pretty good chance of landing their preferred QB prospect all while still having their original 1[SUP]st[/SUP] round pick to use on a defensive stud.
Summary:
So…after all of that…let’s just take a moment to let it sink in. It’s all just a hypothetical but certainly something we can openly wonder about. I don’t know how things will play out this season or how HC Adam Gase would feel having Tannehill stripped away so soon. But that also makes me wonder how much consideration has been given to the idea already. Have Tannenbaum, Grier and Gase already talked about the potential of what might happen if Tannehill isn’t the guy? Surely they’re not blind and have talked about it as a possibility but to what degree we can’t say.
If you want my personal opinion, I’ll give it to you. I like Tannehill and enjoy rooting for him because he is smart, tough and appears to be an all-around stand-up guy. He seems like a solid QB who might very well end up as a QB coach somewhere someday (if he likes football enough to hang around the game). Nevertheless, I want the Dolphins to win more than I want to see a Lifetime movie about a righteous dude. So right now I’d give serious consideration to the idea of trading Tannehill to CLE or SF if it involved a 1[SUP]st[/SUP] round pick. The fact you might get multiple picks in return due to Tannehill’s age and injury-free history is very enticing.
But that’s right now. It’s not factoring in what Adam Gase is going to do this year. We’ll see what happens as far as this season goes. But if you came from the future and told me that 2016 only provided more of the same with Ryan Tannehill (a big IF) and that in 2017 the Dolphins could be starting DeShawn Watson at QB (or whoever you prefer) and some top-end defensive stud in addition to a whole host of other picks and signings it would give me pause because that seems like the beginnings of legit rebuilding.
It’s just food for thought, and if nothing else a little perspective on where the NFL stands with QBs right now and how valuable Tannehill may or may not be.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Great post Greg!
IF it comes to the point where Gase thinks he's better off without Tannehill, I'm not worried at all about being able to trade him. The guy is a solid average QB but won't give you anything to be the difference maker in games, at least on average.
There's ALWAYS a team that just doesn't have a decent QB. The bigger question is whether there's any QB in the draft that we'd want to take.
Anyway, as you say it's just after 1 game. I'll reserve judgment until season is over but so far I see the same QB we had last 2 years.gunn34 and DolphinGreg like this. -
vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member
Its certainly worth discussing...even if I believe Ryan Tannehill will be our QB for another 5 or more years.
But, lets say Im wrong...and he has plateaued. He is still cheap as far as starting QBs go next season, so what I think will happen is you will see us spend a high round pick on a QB and keep Tannehill through 2017.
The only other way he would get traded....IMO...and we would get something decent in return, is if you had a playoff contending team lose their QB just before the start of the season...ala Bridgewater. Then I could see you bending someone over the table for a Ryan Tannehill.
Outside of that....I think yall better get used to him being around through next season.gunn34 likes this. -
I don't think Gase will okay trading him away unless and until we have a replacement at least in our sights.
-
-
Would be hard to trade him this season with so much financial roadblocks. The fact that we could (all be it doubtfull) cut him in the offseason and free up 20M in space.
If you are one of those teams it would be smarter to just wait and see what we do with him as opposed to mortgaging multiple picks and taking on a massive contract.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkDolphinGreg likes this. -
Hard to see a team trading for someone with a $20MM salary. Would be a huge red flag that Miami is moving him.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk -
That said, Miami doesnt really have anyone currently that could start, so they would have to rely on FA or the draft next year. Would have been nice to have better talent on the roster currently. Even if Tannehill doesnt play very well this year, they may just have to keep him while hedging their bets.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk -
-
Folks, you know that I've been critical of Ryan Tannehill since day one and I'm always quick to point out his shortcomings. But discussing a trade between weeks 1-2 of the regular season is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life- especially since he's going to be paid Tom Brady numbers with the win percentage of Jay Fielder.
And even in a world where someone like Cleveland would give us two first round picks to make it a definite green light in Miami, it's just too late to turn Moore loose at the helm. He's likely going to retire in the next year or two, which leaves us drafting our QB1 and completely rebuilding Gase's offense all over again (since he bases the offense on the skill-sets available). And if you remember, I've had a "Start Moore" thread for two seasons now...it's not like I'm not being objective here. The concussions and age are simply too much to overcome at this point unless we're talking about a few series or the occasional game.
So it's not going to happen this season and I'd be shocked if it happens at year's end...because the value simply will not be there on either side of the coin.
Like it or not, Ryan Tannehill is either our QB1 for several years to come or he's going to get cut from the team. His contract simply isn't trade-friendly unless he opts out...and he's far too smart to do that. So again, I just don't understand this discussion- either RT is the man for several more years now or we lick our wounds and move on. There really isn't any middle ground here.Shane Falco likes this. -
Interesting post but the circumstances that occurred between the Eagles and Vikings is going to be tough to replicate. The Eagles already had what they believe is their QB of the future. The Vikings made the playoffs last year and AP isn't getting any younger. So, unless Gase thinks Doughty is his QB of the future, and he may. CK seems genuinely intrigued by the kid and he knows much more about it than I. Then all you would need is a team that believes their a decent QB from contention to pull of a deal like that.
But I'm with VT. I think Gase is exactly who Tannehill needed. -
Guys, make sure you read the content. There are individual conclusions for those who don't want to read the entire thing.
I'm not suggesting we trade Tannehill now and it's obvious that you'd draft a replacement if you traded him...obviously.
The timing of this post has nothing do with its content. Please make sure you realize that before adding your 2 cents. We won't make any decisions until after the season is through. I'm just making everyone aware of what the landscape may look like. -
If you look like you're perfectly happy to roll with Tannehill (which most of us probably will be given our beliefs about Gase), and yet you dangle him over a team like Cleveland or SF, you may very well get a bite. That's definitely possible. Nobody can tell me that's not possible, especially when Chip Kelly traded for Bradford while with the Eagles.
It's definitely a situation where you might be able to trade him this offseason and if so, you better have thought it through. If the opportunity is there you have to consider doing it and that's why this year with Gase matters.
After this offseason, I agree, there's no chance it's either a cut or hold situation. -
The truth is, most teams aren’t going to be interested and if that’s the case I don’t think Miami makes a move personally. Strategy would dictate that if you can’t turn a profit selling Tannehill that you just keep him. And subsequently, if you keep him for 2017, I think you either re-sign to keeping him or you end up drafting his replacement on down the line.
All hypothetical but the original point is, Tannehill just isn’t the trade bait I figured he was prior to digging a little deeper. That said, I absolutely do think Chip Kelly is stupid when it comes to managing a roster so I believe there's potential to fleece the 49ers. -
-
I'm more interested in the fact Chip Kelly brought Bradford to the Eagles than the fact that he wound up in Minnesota because of a weird incident with Bridgewater. I agree that's flukey but if Kelly has any influence in roster decisions over in SF (which "officially" I don't think he does) then the possibility is there to move Tannehill I think--at least in theory.
And in the end, this was just about pointing out how there are VERY FEW teams with needs at QB right now. I thought Tannehill would be in-demand if he hit the market. I don't think that's the case at all quite honestly. :( -
-
I'm not totally clear on Tannehill's contract anyway. I know he's expensive after this year. Someone want to educate me on whether there's any way around it? -
Everyone would have to work it out, however, a trade would not be impossible or improbable if the situation where Tannehill has another 4,000 yard season, but for some reason did not give Gase what he wants.DolphinGreg likes this. -
Gase didnt come here to quickly take his team to the playoffs in his first year. Its a long rebuild of incompetence built by Parcells, Sparano, Ireland, Hickey and Philbin. Everyone knows how I feel about Ireland but that first draft by Hickey, holy god lol almost as bad as the year we drafted Dion in which we grabbed nothing..
Anyways, I think by midseason Gase will know enough about Tannehill to see if he's his type of quarterback, and make a decision of tannehill's future when the season is over. -
-
Well, here's the deal, if you don't ask questions you never get answers. A week ago I'd have figured Tannehill would be valuable on the open market. Turns out, that's probably not the case. Might not be news to you, but it's eye-opening to me because it means Miami doesn't have the assets I thought they did were they to reset.
So if 5 people call me an idiot for following through some investigation on a premise that's logical and possible, it's those people who get left out. I've defended Tannehill countless times so I'm allowed to go the other way as well, at least in terms of discussing strategy.
A look around the NFL makes it clear that in the event Tannehill isn't the guy (or a fan didn't think he was the guy) the answer would have to involve a draft pick and that may very well be one that has to again be taken away from roster building.
This may all seem too much to some but over the course of this season the topic of conversations will shift from how Gase is changing Tannehill to whether it's enough to continue down that road.
I actually don't believe this is a make or break year for Ryan personally. I think his job is secure. But that said, I'm in the minority. The vast majority of people are talking about year-5 as though it's a critical point. -
In general I'd say this, if you don't have a response to the topic then don't offer one.
And if objectively laying the cards on the table to explore all options offends you then obviously you're biased and should go re-examine your views.
I'm largely pro-Tannehill, one of the accused "apologists" on this site. But don't expect me to accommodate people who simply want to drop into a thread to offer a snarky reply.
If you don't have a take that's valuable don't offer it up.
And lastly, don't give me that "discussing a trade during week 1" HS. If you're not interested, don't partake. Go watch games and ignore the conversations that are detached from weekly events and aimed at what's happening next year.Rock Sexton likes this. -
I'll ask again....if anyone trades Thill, whose the target and what's plan to get that person?
RevRick and MikeHoncho like this. -
Year 5 is a crossing point for many QBs, the Dolphins(Dawn Aponte), put this contract together, that pays Ryan about what he would have made on the 5th year option, with the Dolphins having control of keeping him if he got better, or getting rid of him if he didn't, it's a well made contract.
If, lets say, he was signed to a 5th year option and he did well, now he has the power of FA to push his price up, but with this contract we get to keep him at a fair price, and if he doesn't do well, it's time to move on anyway, like I was saying, it was a well done contract.
So I think it's the team themselves that have shined a light on his 5th year, and justifiably so imo, as it stands right now, he's not worth the 20mil per it would cost to keep him after this year, if he gets better this year, and shows he's worth it, then great, we hang on to him, but you don't pay a 5th year QB 20 mil per in hopes that he does start to earn it, that is a littered road of bad business.
A trade imo, because of how this contract is done, would have to have been this year, 9.3 mil is all you would have to invest for a trial year, next year it will cost 17.5 for a 6th year QB you hope will get better, obviously mitigating any draft pick consideration, almost double the price, and now a 6th year QB, his chances of becoming what you hope are getting slimmer, I think it would be doubtful that you could even get a 1st next year, since the writing would be pretty much on the wall.DolphinGreg likes this. -
I guess I just figured that a guy of Tannehill's caliber would surely be valuable to someone. I figured there would be a team somewhere willing to eat that contract just to get a serviceable QB but now I'm feeling less confident in that being the case. A look around the league makes it seem like pretty much everyone has a guy who's at least close to the level Tannehill's on. -
Bottom line. Tannehill was ok but will improve dramatically as the weeks go by and the team jells into the new system and we play easier defenses. My prediction is tanny will play in the pro bowl and have a psychotic second Hal of the season when everything works like a well oiled machine. The atregth of this team is the offense not the defense though I can see how people might miss that after watching the first gmresnor likes this. -
-
Why is this a topic of discussion?
-
I also believe that he could be a late bloomer, his best days may be in his 30s, so I wouldn't be against keeping him at 10-12 mil, while actively searching for a possible replacement, and if certain lights turn on for him and he does get better, you roll with him.
I wonder if he would take a pay cut to stay if he has a similar year? He just might, but I hope he has a great year, and we can put all this "QB speculation" talk to bed. :yes: -
-
RevRick, Fin D, adamprez2003 and 1 other person like this.
-
-
resnor likes this.
-
Regardless, the "U guyz r hat3rz" act is tired. Go waste it on someone else. -
-
I'm so glad you quoted him.
Which of the "Fluffer Five" is not a straight male? Even if one were gay, it would still be derogatory to say that about them.adamprez2003 likes this.
Page 1 of 2