People have their opinions on players all the time.

Personally, if Tannehill is there at #8, I would take him and I think the fins should take him.

This regime needs to earn our trust, particularly Ireland. If we pass on Tannehill and get a Weeden then ok. If we don't, an explanation will be necessary

 

What if they take Russell Wilson?

 

To me, outside of Luck and RGIII, I see only two QBs who have "franchise" potential, Tannehill and Weeden.

Obviously I don't come at this with any expertise, but Wilson's height scares me. Certainly he has skills but a QB succeeding at his height in the NFL is really unprecedented. Brees is a full inch taller than him and Brees is the exception to the rule.

Now, I wouldn't hate a Wilson pick, and would rather take a flyer on him than a stiff like Cousins, but I want to stop merely taking flyers on guys. Give me a blue chipper.

 

So we're seeing different things. To me, there's two quarterbacks and then everybody else. I don't really have qualms with Wilson's height.

 

I agree with you that Luck and RGIII are on a different level.

But I do think that Tanny/Weeden are on the next level by themselves and then there is everybody else.

Perhaps wilson will break the mold, but there is no precedent for long term success in the NFL at that height. He reminds me a bit of Senecca Wallace. Nice player, good backup, won't kill you if you have to play him, but not a guy you want to hitch your wagon to.

 

I say again, I don't know enough to rate QB's, but you cannot tell me that Weeden, Tannehill or Wilson don't have a real chance to be franchise. You also cannot tell me that this franchise has made QB a priority since Marino. You also can't tell me that we increase our odds of getting a franchise QB by not picking one in the first round.

It is time to gamble and to continue to gamble until we get our franchise guy. Anything less is unacceptable.

 

I don't think so personally but to each their own.

I think he's a lot better passer than Seneca is.

 

If they pass on Tannehill, and he turns out to be good, then the FO will be crucified.

If they pass on him, and he turns out to be bad, don't see how they can be crucified.

I've never been a fan of criticizing a draft without the benefit of hindsight.

 

Dolphins fans always find a way, ha.

 

So if they take Wilson or Weeden after the first round, you wouldn't be pleased?

 

No I would be ok.

I've said in numerous posts I want a QB with "first round talent". I will not be ok if they try and get cute though. At this point, I'm not in favor of our FO passing on Tanny in hopes a Weeden or Wilson will be available later. Get the QB you want now. We can no longer afford to add even more variables to the QB search.

Yes, that means if their guy is Wilson or Weeden I want them to take him at 8.

 

I often wonder what DJ does for a living.

 

Fair enough.

The problem I have is that if Sherman and Philbin say that they don't think Tannehill is a "franchise" guy, but Wilson is, it would be very hard for Ireland to take him.

 

I'm gonna restate somethings about QB's, the draft and the NFL:

1. You cannot win consistently without a franchise QB. Yes you need a solid defense particularly a solid d-line. But QB is number one on the list. This cannot be realistically argued.
2. Franchise QB's are overwhelmingly found in the first round and becomes less likely with each round. This cannot be realistically argued.
3. The draft has changed thanks to the rookie cap. There is considerably less penalty for missing in the first round. This cannot be realistically argued.
4. We haven't had a franchise QB since Marino and we haven't spent a first rd pick on one either. This cannot be realistically argued.

Everyone can come up with their own way to process those four simple facts. After the first two picks there are 3 QBs with legitimate first round talent but each has a major flaw. Weeden's is age, Tanny's is lack of experience and Wilson's is height. None of those flaws are reason enough for us to not take one of them at 8. There is no position/player we can draft at 8 that will have more of an impact than a franchise QB. Not a DE, not a WR. None.

At some point in the future, GM's are going to realize they can pick QB's high every year because the penalty is so low. When that happens and it will, a QB's value in the draft is going to change drastically. It simply makes no sense anymore to say Wilson/Weeden/Tanny aren't first round prospects. They each have a 50% or better chance to be franchise at the most important position in the league. There is no better definition of first round value than that...especially now that their rookie salaries won't put a team into cap hell.

We can no longer leave the most important position to our success up to journeyman and second round picks. It has not worked and the fact that it hasn't worked...cannot be realistically argued.

 

What if those two don't end up being all that good?

 

What if whoever we take that isn't a QB, sucks? Its a silly question quite frankly.

 

The bolded part is extremely debatable. Its very likely that many NFL teams have none of those guys rated as first round talents. It can only be judged with hindsight.

 

I mentioned 3 QBs Deej.

 

I don't really find it silly considering I'm not particularly a fan of the two prospects.

 

rant??????


****after successfully climbing on his high-horse of course****

:tongue2:

 

I cant wait for the draft. I may revisit the uniform threads. LOL.

No disrespect DJ!

 

Its always debatable. Its not even a lock Luck is going to succeed. This isn't about debate or locks. Its about priorities. If Ireland doesn't take a QB at 8, then it shows his priorities are not about the QB position but on getting good deals. Good deals are great and all, but journeymen QBs aren't going to make us consistently great. It just never happens that way.

 

It is silly because you cannot guarantee any player will be good or bad. If you had a 75% average of predicting who will and won't be a franchise player you might have a point. No one does. Risk is inherent. When it comes to QB the risk is different because the reward is different than any other player.

 

No, taking a bad QB at 8 doesn't say anything about your priorities, it says everything about your ability to evaluate talent.

Using your logic, taking Osweiler at 8 would be a successful pick, regardless of how he plays.

 

And if Ireland says all the QBs have a 1% chance of becoming good, he should still pick one?

 

You're also assuming that the only reason we would pass is that sherman says that. That's not a good assumption and removes all responsibility for the pick from Ireland, which you seem to want to do.

Sherman has no authority on any pick. I'm sure Ireland will listen to his opinion but it's Ireland call at the end of the day. Same thing with Flynn. If we pass on Tanny and two years from now he's a top 10 QB then it's Ireland's fault.

 

I can't believe I am saying it, but I'd much rather go into the season with Moore and Garrard and a BPA pick at another needed position than reach. If they honestly feel Tannehill or Weeden are the answer, than fine. To reach just to get a QB? How did that work out for JAX and MIN so far. I know it is too early to tell but neither seem to be the answer for their respective teams.

 

No, I can't, but I can take less risks by not taking boom or bust prospects.

 

Why does there have to be a QB prospect that good? Franchise QBs don't come along every year.

 

That's not part of my logic at all. No one has Osweiler with first round talent.

 

The bolded, exactly.

The draft shouldn't be judged before the players actually play. To criticize passing on a player regardless of how that player plays is just silly.

 

So essentially Jeff Ireland's evaluation of the talent has to match the consensus evaluation? Thats extremely flawed.

How do we know where NFL teams have Osweiler rated?

 

That is a silly question. So here's one in return.

What if you found out a GM had a rule of not taking any player that had less than an 85% of making it, in the first round?