Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut
|
It gets hard to take certain evaluators seriously when they keep concluding that Luck doesn't have an elite physical skill set. If after three seasons at Stanford, we still have to wait until Luck's pro day to establish that he's a cut above the rest in the way he throws the football, that's going to be problematic for the entire draft process.
I agree that Griffin and Luck offer very, very different methodologies of getting to the same end. But the thing that they share is that they consistently complete about 70% at the college level. I think teams are perfectly in their rights to prefer one players physical tools over the other, although the biggest difference between Griffin and Luck remains their starting point. Griffin's career as a professional will begin on draft day. Luck's effectively began two years ago.
Saying that Tannehill is in the class of Luck or Griffin in terms of physical assets seems more like trying to see exactly how much bs will stick before someone calls you on it. I think Tannehill in the Redskins offense offers an intriguing alternative to Robert Griffin, because of terminology familiarity. But ultimately, I think Tannehill would run into the same long term problem here that he hit at Texas A&M, which is that the offense doesn't effectively use him as the dual threat he can be, and instead relies on him as a pocket passer with a boot/counter component, which just makes him another guy in this league (just like he ended up being at Texas A&M).
I like Tannehill's long term prospects a lot better in a system that spreads horizontally, such as Green Bay, Kansas City, or Seattle. He might have to learn new terminology, but I think he'll be better for it in the long run. Alternatively, I think Griffin can succeed in any system, but I think he'll always struggle to overcome the people who will bias unconventional pocket mechanics with the inability to perform in the pocket (i.e. the people who don't think Philip Rivers is a great quarterback).