[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Re: rawness, that is what I gathered from you (that you were downgrading him on it), but I feel like a lot of others have concluded that because he can get so much better than he is, his flaws aren't significant issues. Whereas evaluations seem to be far more terminal on Foles, Cousins, and Moore. It's almost like we've reached a point where college productivity is being held against players: Tannehill is getting pushed up somewhat because he lacks it. That, to me, is backwards.

I can't speak to why or how anyone else ranks the prospects.
But I'm not grading Tannehill on upside which seems to be what you suggest above.

(I'm simplifying a great deal here for the sake of brevity)
Cousins and Moore for me have physical limitations that guide their rankings.
Foles compared to Tannhell gives equal tier arm talent but without the wheels.

College production isn't a major factor for my QB assessments one way or another.
I'm not a big stats guy when it comes to judging QBs.
Sure they're valuable when assessing somethings like efficiency.
But imo stats are tricky as an assessment tool because the stats are too enmeshed with the scheme, coaching and surrounding talent to make an accurate measure about the prospect by leaning heavily on stats.

With Weeden, I don't think he can ever overcome his age, so I'm not rating him like I believe he can. I think you can take Weeden, plug him into your system, enjoy having a strong armed quarterback in the Joe Flacco mold, and just deal with the fact that he's going to be a two read guy in the pros.

This is where we diverge.
Although I think Weeden has 'plus' arm talent I don't think its on the elite NFL level which is where I put Flacco's.
I see Weeden as a less mobile but stronger armed Andy Dalton.
Regardless of how many reads or how far along any QB prospect is right now; to have success at the next level they're all gonna have to become more effecient multiple progression read QBs.
Whether its Weeden or any other prospect.

Originally Posted by GT

I like Brock Osweiler, but Tannehill was the better college player of the two. Ergo, he's the better pro prospect, even though he's giving tools up in the comparison.

I agree that Tannehill is a much better prospect then Brock but for me it has little to do with the differences in their college production.

Originally Posted by GT

It seems to me that there are only a couple of QBs in this class that don't throw on the move well, but that seems to be a primary positive that follows Tannehill, because he played wide receiver for years.

There are different levels of apptitude when it comes to the different QB traits.
If prospect X does something better then prospect Y you diminish they're separation when you say 'they all do X well'.
Imo for evaluations purposes its important to look at how the prospects stack up next to each other not just in general.
While it may be true that most of the QBs in this class throw the ball decent on the run.
Luck, Griffin, Tannehill and Wilson throw it better on the run the rest of the prospects therefore in that one aspect (out of the many measureables) they rank higher.

Originally Posted by GT

He's a much better athlete than Foles, but I just feel like if evaluators came out and said "that is why I believe the older prospect (Tannehill) has more upside," that it wouldn't fly against criticism. They are all gifted players physically.

Again in a comparative assessment if both QBs throw the ball the same yet Tannehill is a remarkably better athlete that can throw better on the run and make plays with his legs it makes him that much better of a prospect.

Originally Posted by GT

Mostly, I just can't rectify "having the physical tools to be a first round pick" with being the consensus third best guy in the class. It sure seems like someone missed a step somewhere.

Well, that's not the argument I'm making, so I don't know what to tell you about that line of thought.