1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

QB's, the Rookie Cap, & Tannenhill

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by FinNasty, Apr 12, 2012.

  1. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Club Member

    17,087
    16,160
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    So, in the last few days, I've gone from being open to drafting Tannenhill... to being determined that he must be the pick. And it not from anything extra I've seen on film from a few days ago, and its not from any stats either.

    Its from me realizing that the value of the QB position in the draft has drastically changed... and its all b/c of the rookie cap.

    There have been a few arguments for drafting a guy like Tannenhill... and these arguments IMO have been based on an outdated way of thinking that dates back to before the rookie cap was implemented.

    When people say that Tannenhill isnt worth the 8th overall pick... most of the time its not b/c he doesnt have any of the tools/talent/ability/size you are looking for... as most agree that he has all of those qualities to be a franchise QB. The arguments mainly revolve around the fact that he still needs work and grooming due to his inexperience, and that he isnt ready to be thrown in right away (which I tend to agree with). But what I ask... whats wrong with sitting a QB for a year to groom? That never used to be that big of a deal. So, why did that change? Well, rookie QB's became so expensive, that teams literally couldnt afford not to be getting production from a player taking up such a significant portion of the cap. Even then, not long ago Carson Palmer was taken 1st overall, with 3+ years of experience, and sat the whole year to develop. And this is the deal he was on:

    And the salary cap per year in 2003? 75 million.

    Thats a ton of money. But it didnt stop there, and obviously spiraled out of control to contracts like Jamarcus Russell and Sam Bradford... and the risk on drafting a QB high became insane. If you didnt hit, your team was screwed for half a decade. And you certainly couldnt afford to pay $50mil guaranteed for a backup QB while he developed on the bench. You HAD to play him. However, an end was put to the madness with the rookie cap. Order was restored if you will... and hence... value in the draft has changed IMO.

    Last years 8th overall pick, QB Jake Locker, signed a 4 year 12 million dollar deal. Thats it. And the salary cap in 2011? 120 million. If you miss on that, its hardly difficult to get out from. So, now with the upside of having potential to be a franchise QB... a position that can make 10x more impact than any other position, especially in today's NFL... makes the reward now far greater than the risk. And with the rookie no longer taking up a huge portion of the cap, you can now afford to sit them for a year to actually groom and develop, especially in cases like a Tannenhill where the tools are there but the experience is lacking. And due to there being less risk... like last year with guys like Ponder, you are going to continue to see QBs go higher than they would have in previous drafts that didnt have the rookie cap.

    I dont think teams feel the pressure to play a rookie QB, other than fan chants, like the financial ones they felt previously. Now, some coaches will still feel the pressure to get immediate production from their rookie QB more than others (like say, Shannahan who is already on the hotseat and needs big things fast to save his job. He needs RG3 to play immediately, and play well. Hence the 50 visits they are doing with RG3 trying to teach him the playbook before hes even drafted). However, with a coach like Philbin with a built in honeymoon, who groomed Aaron Rogers for a couple of years before he got on the field... I believe he sees and understands the value of grooming a QB and not necessarily needing to throw him into the fire immediately.

    So, I guess I ask after all that... if we were to take Tannenhill with the plan and understanding of icing him for the year to groom behind Moore and develop (as I would like to see), and not be rushed into action like many believe that he isnt ready for, why would that be such a bad thing? Without the financial risk... isnt the potential of being a franchise QB to set your team up for years worth more than the opportunity cost of potentially missing on a good player at a different position (who also has a decent percentage of busting as well)?

    And that brings me to the next point. Due to Tannenhill's inexperience... there is definitely some added risk to drafting him vs. say someone like Luck who we've seen for 3+ years and know exactly what he is. With Tannenhill, there is more "projection" involved in drafting him b/c you havent seen it. And if you swing and miss on the QB, you are missing out on the opportunity cost of acquiring an impact player at another position. But, its not like the choice is between a risky QB, and a surefire lock impact player at another position (non-QB)... b/c that player at another position also carries a good chance of becoming a bust. Looking at the 8th overall pick since 2000, with Jake Locker selected last year, here are the players previously selected at 8 overall over the past 10 years, all of which were non-QBs.

    Rolando McClain - Jury still out, but promising
    Eugene Monroe - Jury still out, but has been pretty shakey
    Derrick Harvey - BUST
    Jamall Anderson - BUST. Has 7.5 sacks in 5 seasons, and is now on his 3rd team
    Donte Whitner - A gross disappointment, if not a BUST, according to Bills fans
    Antrel Rolle - A good player, on his 2nd team
    DeAngelo Hall - A talented but inconsistent player. On his 3rd/4th team now?
    Jordan Gross - A good player
    Roy Williams (Safety) - You decide whether to call him a bust. Was great as a SS for a year or 2, but quickly fizzled out
    David Terrell - BUST

    Pending on how you rate some of those players, theres a 40-60% chance of the player you select 8th overall of being a bust. And that is my point. They are ALL risks. Sure, a QB like Tannenhill may provide a little more risk than another player at a skill position... however, how much more risk than 40-60%? IMO, whatever extra risk comes with a QB like Tannenhill... the possible reward of being a franchise QB FAR exceeds that.

    I guess what I'm saying, is that I believe the traditional line of thinking of where a 50/50 "should go", is becoming outdated due to the implementation of the rookie cap... b/c you are no longer risking gambling a huge financial investment with only a 4 year 12mil deal. More and more often you are now going to see those 50/50 QB's go higher in the draft than where they "should have gone" in previous drafts without the cap... as the risk on them is plummeting, while simultaneously, the reward for one panning out is sky rocketing as the league becomes more and more about the QB position and the passing game.
     
  2. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Club Member

    17,087
    16,160
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Well, I dont think theres even been an opportunity to see whether Jeff's values have changed based on the rookie cap... as the cap has only been in place for 1 draft... and 4 QBs went ahead of him. In fact, I'd wager that theres a chance Ireland may have seen the changes in the value first hand... if he was expecting Locker/Ponder to be on the board and saw them go higher that he probably thought possible...
     
    ToddsPhins and Fin D like this.
  3. GridIronKing34

    GridIronKing34 Silently Judging You Club Member

    23,333
    16,116
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    Denver, CO
    Whitner was good in San Francisco this year.
     
  4. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Club Member

    17,087
    16,160
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    I wouldnt confuse being a good player with being on a good defense. Buffalo was hardly sad to let him go after being a disappointment for 5 years.

    Even if he had the best year of his career this season in SF... that level of play was hardly worth the 8th overall pick... and certainly isnt worth not rolling the dice on a QB for IMO...
     
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Thank god a respected poster finally made a thread about what I've been saying for a few weeks. Now maybe other posters will understand how draft value has changed.
     
    FinNasty likes this.
  6. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Club Member

    17,087
    16,160
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    It definitely has changed. And I think teams realized it the second the cap was implemented... as we saw those 4 QBs go in the top 12 last year. I think its going to take the general public/media a little longer to catch onto the trend... but that doesnt mean IMO that internally teams havent begun to view them quite different now.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  7. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    20,957
    9,775
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Alexandria, VA
    Yet you spend the rest of your time in threads supporting a GM who up until this point has not shared your opinion on the value of the QB position. What will you think if Tannehill is available at #8 and Irish passes?
     
  8. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,954
    10,268
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    No, Whitner played pretty well...he isnt a pro bowler but he is a very solid player.
     
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I don't think there was a QB available last draft at our pick that was better than or had more upside than Moore.

    And I haven't been supporting Ireland as much as I've been saying I don't think we have enough info to pass judgement yet. You know for all this bull**** policing you do about people blasting others who don't agree with them, you sure do seem to have a habit of the same thing. I don't think the way you do and that Ireland should drawn and quartered, biut you take that to mean I'm his biggest fan. All I've really said is that we need to give him to the end of this coming season. Its like talking to a child.
     
  10. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    20,957
    9,775
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Alexandria, VA
    You're very defensive about all this. I'm not mocking you, I just asked a simple question. You've defended Ireland from just about every criticism that's been thrown at him from posters here. If that's not support, I don't know what is. I'm not saying you're wrong for supporting him. I'm just wondering if you opinion of the man is going to change if he leaves Tannehill on the table at pick #8.
     
  11. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Club Member

    17,087
    16,160
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Lets please not derail this thread into another Ireland debate... we have plenty of threads for those...
     
  12. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Club Member

    17,087
    16,160
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    OK, so dont count him as a bust in that pool of players. I would still say that getting "solid player" who is not pro bowl caliber at the 8th overall pick is a disappointment though...
     
  13. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    78,943
    154,834
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    I think FinNasty is right in that the money change makes the whole issue of should I or should I not take X quarterback at #8 overall when I have no quarterbacks and X is really talented...becomes silly.

    Ben Volin says we're stuck with Tannehill for the next 3 years. Maybe THESE guys are. But if I were GM, I wouldn't be. If Tannehill blows chunks and we get #1 overall and Matt Barkley is on the board, who the hell is to say we can't pick Barkley. If I were the Vikings and I had Christian Ponder fresh off the #12 pick, and then this year I'm choosing #1 overall, you're damn right I'm taking Andrew Luck.
     
  14. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'll post this again since it goes:

    [​IMG]
     
    MrClean likes this.
  15. dsteve

    dsteve Banned

    516
    70
    0
    Sep 26, 2011
    i think your example needs a bigger sample size. how about picks 8-15 instead of just saying the ****ty team that did ****ty enough to finish with the 8th pick made a **** pick. :)
     
  16. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Why? The argument is, is it worth to grab a Tanny at 8.
     
    DOLPHAN1 likes this.
  17. dsteve

    dsteve Banned

    516
    70
    0
    Sep 26, 2011
    because it's reasonable to assume that the players a few picks back could have been picked at 8, the team picking 8 just missed them. it doesn't show the value of the 8 pick, it shows how badly those teams drafted and those teams being in that spot is prob a result of them drafting poorly.
     
  18. dsteve

    dsteve Banned

    516
    70
    0
    Sep 26, 2011
    btw, I'd pick him at 8 if I were the gm. if he ends up sucking then oh well, youll be in a good spot to try barkley next year.
     
  19. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Club Member

    17,087
    16,160
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Exactly. Nothing about drafting a QB makes you committed anymore. And certainly nothing would stop you from getting Barkley if you didnt have much confidence in Tannenhill after a year and believed Barkley was the real deal.


    Where as... the Rams had no choice but to stay with Bradford, even if they lacked confidence in him and thought RG3 was the truth. They had no choice but to sell the pick and try to put stuff around Bradford, b/c parting with him wasnt an option.

    Ah, I love the rookie cap...
     
  20. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Club Member

    17,087
    16,160
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    If you have the time, go for it man. If not, I may take a look at it in the next few days if I get some time. I dont doubt though that we will see a similar statistical probability of hitting on pick #11, or even pick #5 as we do pick #8. The draft is much more of a crapshoot than many make it out to be...
     
  21. Destroyer

    Destroyer There for every play.

    2,884
    1,038
    113
    Oct 25, 2010
    Maryland
    And if we pick him at 8 and he doesnt work out its something else we can use to fuel the fire for our Jeff Ireland protests/rants. Win win right?!?
     
    GMJohnson likes this.
  22. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    20,957
    9,775
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Alexandria, VA
    How many times does it need to be said? Most of the folks who have problems with Ireland have problems with him because he's done almost nothing to address the QB position during his time here. He won't be blamed for missing on a QB. He'll be blamed for not trying.
     
  23. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    How has he done nothing?

    Lets say for argument's sake you guys are right, and Ireland called all the shots and told Parcells to eff himself, then count all the QBs brought in in 4 years:

    Penny, Henne, Moore, White, Devlin, Garrard, Thigpen and a think one or two more I can't remember. Yet everyone says he won't take a QB.
     
  24. seabass0795

    seabass0795 New Member

    1,400
    624
    0
    Feb 26, 2012
    Orlando
    We have other positions to fill, sure qb is one of them but not the most important one. We need a pass rusher opposite Wake and WR. I know WR will be addressed in later round but what I think is we get Ingram or Coples at 8. Our DL would be Wake, Odrick, Soliai, and Coples/Ingram. IMO that is one hell of a DL we got their, and our defense would get so much better instantly. If we get Ryan Tannenhill he would have to sit the first year, which is not what you want from a top 10 pick.
     
    DHPVW likes this.
  25. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    Which tells me take BPA.
     
    seabass0795 likes this.
  26. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You don't think Tanny or Weeden have at least a 50% chance or better from becoming franchise?
     
  27. rafael

    rafael Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    27,368
    31,255
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    If you don't have a franchise QB, it is always the most important one.
     
    FinNasty likes this.
  28. seabass0795

    seabass0795 New Member

    1,400
    624
    0
    Feb 26, 2012
    Orlando
    I think he talked only about the first round, Weeden is a second round pick
     
  29. MrClean

    MrClean Inglourious Basterd Club Member

    How does one put a percentage on it? I could say oh no, they have a 48% chance or some such. You could perhaps say like 53% or thereabouts. It seems like an arbitrary number to me. Of course if I want to take one at 8th, I'll just say I've concluded that he has a 55-60% chance to justify the pick.
     
  30. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    They have to put a number on it. At some point, someone on staff has to decide between 7 QBs.
     
  31. rafael

    rafael Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    27,368
    31,255
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Personally, 50% is my cut off for whether or not I consider a QB is worth a first round pick. I had Luck, Tannehill, Weeden and RG3 as all having better than a 50% chance of becoming franchise QBs.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  32. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    20,957
    9,775
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Alexandria, VA
    But you don't think "us guys" are right. So why are you making that argument?

    In my opinion, he hasn't made a proper investment in the game's most important position. Proper investment, IMHO, being a first round pick or somehow acquiring an already established franchise QB. Pennington was the only franchise QB of that lot and he fell into their laps. He also wasn't a long term solution to the position.
     
  33. PhinPhanatic

    PhinPhanatic New Member

    466
    66
    0
    Feb 22, 2011
    Rochester, NY
    An excellent point that speaks directly to the now limited risk in drafting a QB in the first. My only fear, along the lines with the threads that share the 1st rd qb stats, is taking a QB in the first just because its the first rd. Taking anyone, including a QB in the first, does not make them a first round talent. Still Bleedin for Weeden but really just want the team to make a good decision and address the position.
     
  34. rafael

    rafael Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    27,368
    31,255
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I don't believe there has been an opportunity to wisely invest that much in a QB.
     
  35. PhinPhanatic

    PhinPhanatic New Member

    466
    66
    0
    Feb 22, 2011
    Rochester, NY
    not that we have won. However picking in the first does not make the QB better!!! And picking one in the second, like Weeden, does not mean he will be as poor as most 2nd rounders!!
     
  36. DHPVW

    DHPVW DuB addict

    1,516
    248
    0
    Apr 1, 2010
    AZ-520
    I'm not the biggest Tannehill fan but not completely opposed to him at #8 either. I would have rather taken Mallet in the 2nd rd last year but that's just my opinion. To ignore the fact that we need a 1st rd pass rusher this year would be stupid imo. Moore needs his chance to start all season and if it doesn't work then we bet the farm on Barkley. Build the last few pieces of the team this year and hope Moore shows he can lead this team for the long haul. Everyone saying Moore can't be a franchise QB is wrong. He has the talent and just needs a solid chance. He played well last year and will prob only get better.

    At worst we wait one more year for our "franchise QB" and build the rest of the team up. If we do draft Tannehill I will obviously root for him to succeed but just not sure he will.
     
  37. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,159
    7,741
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    There's a monumental difference between defending someone and repeatedly asking for legitimate facts to better help make an informed, objective opinion.
    In your eyes it seems like he's "defending Ireland from criticism", when in reality he's defending "objectivity".
     
  38. FinNasty

    FinNasty Alabama don’t want this... Club Member

    17,087
    16,160
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Well, if that is you're opinion... we wont see eye to eye on this topic. But IMO, if you dont have a franchise QB... its your biggest need and will continue to be until you find one. Especially considering how important the QB position has become in this day and age, with how the rules are set up to make it a passing league.

    Also, who says sitting a year is not what you want from a top 10 pick? Who established that standard? If the idea is to have the guy be your franchise QB for the next decade, whats that first year matter? QB's used to sit for their rookie years all the time...
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  39. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    20,957
    9,775
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Alexandria, VA
    Todd, maybe...just maybe I could believe others in the pro Ireland camp are being objective. But not you. Not after Henne. It's ok though. I mean this with all sincerity - there is nothing wrong being a Dolphins homer. I've homered out on Dolphins players/coaches and will probably do so in the future. It's part of being a fan. Just don't kid yourself.
     
  40. Alex44

    Alex44 Boshosaurus Rex

    20,812
    8,967
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Hollywood, Florida
    Personally I feel I'm pretty objective. If Ireland makes bad picks and his drafts turn out bad, he doesn't build a strong team or so forth I will be the first to say he needs to go. I simply don't hold him accountable for ANYTHING that happened while Parcells was here. Not even the good acquisitions. In my opinion unless you have a pick that guarantees you a franchise QB one or two seasons is just not enough time to completely turn around a franchise that was on a steady decline for a while. He gets two more seasons from me before I throw him to the wolves. Or one season with some AWFUL AWFUL decisions made.
     

Share This Page