[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.....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.

I agree, but that isn't what Waldman is concluding.
I agree with Waldman because I think his view of the top 3 is similar to mine.
There is no doubt that Luck has an elite physical skillset or Griffin; however and I think this is where we diverge, from a physical skill set only standpoint Tannehill is on the same plane as Luck and Griffin.

I think a large portion of what separates Luck from the other prospects is directly related to Harbaugh.
And I mean that as a compliment to both.
I think Jim Harbaugh is currently the premiere QB guru in the NFL.
His success with Josh Johnson and San Deigo State followed by Luck at Stanford and Alex Smith in the NFL is proof positive for me that Harbaugh know how to coach the QB position.
Consequently Luck is one of the most ready to play NFL QBs I can remember.
And you couple that with his physical skill set (size, mobility, playmaking); he's clearly the top QB in this draft class.
But, even if he Luck didn't have the benefit of Harbaugh's 'AP QB classes' his physical skill set would still make him a top prospect.

But, the QB prospects imo are viewed differently from coaches then by GMs.
Imo when a GM sees a QB like Luck they value his 'pro-readiness' more then coaches especially ones that view themselves as QB gurus.
Pro-readiness to a GM means: QB's X success is less contingent upon my coaching staff's ability to 'coach him up' and to a GM that is very valueable.
But, coaches might think QB's Y skill set is near QB X's skill set and my coaching can make QB's Y skill set produce the same results as QB X.

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.

Why?
If I was judging on physical skill set alone I would have Tannehill ahead of Luck. (especially arm talent and athletic ability)
But, of course evaluating any prospect is based on far more then physical skill set alone.
And for that reason I have Luck and Griffin ahead of Tannehill.

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... 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).

When we start trying to parse what went wrong at A&M you're sliding down a slippery slope.
Football is the ultimate team sport and its hard to isolate a particular issue as grand scale problem.
But, since we're already there; I think the A&M offense suffered from a talent disparity (e.g. A&M lacks the draftable and 1st round talent on offense that Stanford and Baylor have) coupled with poor defensive unit and scared playcalling.
And certainly some of the issues above could hinder Tannehill or any QB we draft to this team.

last thought
-I think Tannehill and Griffin are both scheme diverse