Peyton Manning or RGIII your choice

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm sure there is a school of thought in the FO that is similar to the above.

I guess I'm too trade up averse to advocate trading up for anyone other then a QB.
WRs scare the beejesus out of me and I like our receiving corps at present at have hopes for Hankerson.
I like Richardson but I don't see an Adrian Peterson when I look at him.
I also struggle with whether Kyle's playcalling will ever lend itself to 'featuring' a running back enough to reap the benefits a back like Richardson could provide over our current stable of backs.

I do agree about the compensation and I think it would be reasonable to trade up for Griffin if the cost is next years 1st as opposed to this years 2nd + another pick.
Personally I would try to trade with the Vikes in hopes of lowering the compensation.

I like the idea of staying put for Reif, I believe a sure fire way to prove every aspect of our offense is through upgrading the OL.
I'm old school in the sense because I believe 'winning' at the POA makes any scheme or any set of X's and O's better.

I already know you don't like Tannehill as much as I do but..
I would have to think that there is an element in the FO that wants to take Tannehill.

Maybe 6 is too rich for Ryan and in my heart of hearts I would like to trade down and get Tannehill and the 3rd/4th rated OT Martin or Adams.
But trading down is huge risk when you're gambling on a QB unless they have other QBs that they like later on in the draft like Weeden or Foles.

Then there is always the question of what happens to McCoy should the Browns take Griffin.
I'm probably alone in this but I think McCoy would be a really good fit in Kyle's offense and would provide an instant and meaninful upgrade to Rex and would still have a good amount of to improve before reaching his potential.

I really wish someone could explain to me why Ryan Tannehill is such a favorite as a third QB in this draft. In terms of his components, he's not in the top three in any one thing (height, perhaps the exception after Osweiler), whether measured statistically or observationally. And it would seem logical, that if you break the quarterback class down into components and Tannehill comes out average or below average in most skills, that the fact that he combines all of those blah skills into one package shouldn't make a better prospect than guys (like Foles or Cousins) that do one or two things exceptionally well, but have obvious flaws in either their footwork or decision making.

It would seem that grading only on skill sets, Tannehill has absolutely nothing on Weeden or Osweiler, who are both more physically gifted quaterbacks. If grading him on the production he flashed in college, he's not Foles, he's not Cousins, and he's not 30% of Kellen Moore. I don't feel I'm being unfair to Tannehill at all by putting him solidly in the second round of a class I've already given five first round grades in. In doing so, I'm ranking him ahead of Weeden and Osweiler, who are two guys who can just do more with their arms.

I'm with you on Blackmon: he's my number one receiver in this class, but kind of like when Calvin Johnson came out and I couldn't see the separation between him and Dwayne Bowe (its more obvious now), I can't really tell you with any degree of certainty that he'll have a better career than Kendall Wright or Michael Floyd. Which is why I believe, ultimately, he isn't going to go second overall, even though the Rams need a receiver bad.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I really wish someone could explain to me why Ryan Tannehill is such a favorite as a third QB in this draft. In terms of his components, he's not in the top three in any one thing (height, perhaps the exception after Osweiler), whether measured statistically or observationally. And it would seem logical, that if you break the quarterback class down into components and Tannehill comes out average or below average in most skills, that the fact that he combines all of those blah skills into one package shouldn't make a better prospect than guys (like Foles or Cousins) that do one or two things exceptionally well, but have obvious flaws in either their footwork or decision making.

It would seem that grading only on skill sets, Tannehill has absolutely nothing on Weeden or Osweiler, who are both more physically gifted quaterbacks. If grading him on the production he flashed in college, he's not Foles, he's not Cousins, and he's not 30% of Kellen Moore. I don't feel I'm being unfair to Tannehill at all by putting him solidly in the second round of a class I've already given five first round grades in. In doing so, I'm ranking him ahead of Weeden and Osweiler, who are two guys who can just do more with their arms.

Without sidetracking the thread into a Tannehill discussion and to answer your (rhetorical?) question.
Your assessment of Tannehill is likely very different from the people that see him as 1st round prospect.
For example to my eye Tannehill's arm talent is on the same level as the top arm talents in this class Foles and Osweiler.
His athleticism is near tops in this class behind only Griffin and Russell Wilson.
To my eye Tannehill has more arm talent and is more athletic then Luck.
But Tannehill is raw.
His comparative lack of playing experience makes him a less 'polished' or 'finished' prospect.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Without sidetracking the thread into a Tannehill discussion and to answer your (rhetorical?) question.
Your assessment of Tannehill is likely very different from the people that see him as 1st round prospect.
For example to my eye Tannehill's arm talent is on the same level as the top arm talents in this class Foles and Osweiler.
His athleticism is near tops in this class behind only Griffin and Russell Wilson.
To my eye Tannehill has more arm talent and is more athletic then Luck.
But Tannehill is raw.
His comparative lack of playing experience makes him a less 'polished' or 'finished' prospect.

I agree that his athleticism is the 'x' factor here. But arm talent has a lot of definitions, and I think Tannehill only fits the most narrow definition (that his arm is talented enough to spin a clean football anywhere within 12 yards). Where as Osweiler and Weeden have stronger arms that can drive the football and do so impressively from multiple planes.

And, again, I have Tannehill ranked higher than those two guys, so obviously physical skill set doesn't much matter in my rankings compared against what you can do with it. But it's hard to imagine his supporters being right on him if they are using his "rawness" to justify a high draft grade. I think Osweiler is incredibly raw, but I wouldn't take him in the first ten picks because of that.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I agree that his athleticism is the 'x' factor here. But arm talent has a lot of definitions, and I think Tannehill only fits the most narrow definition (that his arm is talented enough to spin a clean football anywhere within 12 yards). Where as Osweiler and Weeden have stronger arms that can drive the football and do so impressively from multiple planes.

By arm talent I mean the ability to drive the ball with velocity on the litmus test NFL throws: deep comebacks, deep dig, bang 8 (skinny post), deep out.
Tannehill can make all these throws with better velocity then most in this draft class save for maybe Foles and Osweiler.
To my eye Tannehill can make these throws with ease while on the move where as Foles and Weedens accuracy/velocity is affected/diminished with movement.

Originally Posted by GT

And, again, I have Tannehill ranked higher than those two guys, so obviously physical skill set doesn't much matter in my rankings compared against what you can do with it. But it's hard to imagine his supporters being right on him if they are using his "rawness" to justify a high draft grade. I think Osweiler is incredibly raw, but I wouldn't take him in the first ten picks because of that.

You lost me a little here.
Why do you have Tannehill ranked higher then those guys?
Also, something must have been lost in the translation because I don't rate Tannehill highly because he's raw.
Rather its his rawness that prevents him from have a higher grade for me.
That and a tendency to throw at a lower arm angle sometime 3/4 to sidearm motion.
If feel like he doesn't fully extend his throwing arm which doesn't allow him to maximize his throwing height which results in more batted balls then a QB his size should have.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

By arm talent I mean the ability to drive the ball with velocity on the litmus test NFL throws: deep comebacks, deep dig, bang 8 (skinny post), deep out.
Tannehill can make all these throws with better velocity then most in this draft class save for maybe Foles and Osweiler.
To my eye Tannehill can make these throws with ease while on the move where as Foles and Weedens accuracy/velocity is affected/diminished with movement.

You lost me a little here.
Why do you have Tannehill ranked higher then those guys?
Also, something must have been lost in the translation because I don't rate Tannehill as because he's raw.
Rather its his rawness that prevents him from have a higher grade for me.

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.

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. But those guys are a dime a dozen. I bumped Weeden up to the fourth round because guys below that level don't typically have great ball velocity (Weinke didn't). 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.

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. 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.

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.

[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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

I think that "he throws the ball well on the run" is a different assertion than "he throws on the run considerably better than most of this class." The former shows up in most Tannehill scouting reports. The latter is a more controversial position. If I'm attempting to diminish the separation it is only because I feel comfortable grouping with what I would consider to be a secondary skill, based on there not being enough passing attempts on the move to determine relative proficiency.

Regardless, it's not fair to ask you to represent the opinion of the masses, instead of your own evaluations, although that's basically what I'm asking. I'm trying to get educated on what has separated Ryan Tannehill from most of the class. I think you've helped with that.

What I was hoping for is someone to come out and say "this is what you're missing GTripp" and then explain why I've completely overlooked something in my Tannehill evaluation that no one else in this class offers (Luck/Griffin excluded). Thing is, I'm more convinced than ever that the separation between Tannehill and like four other guys is not based on things that would be reflected on an NFL field, but more in the fact that he looks the part.

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying that comparing his ability to throw on the run to that of Russell Wilson does little to explain why he his draft stock hasn't yet taken a huge blow because of the things he struggles with, like throwing some of the deeper routes with timing and accuracy.

[SBXVII]

[QUOTE=30gut;886364]

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.
QUOTE]

Which includes RGIII. His knock is he stares down his receivers, does not go through his progressions well. Usually only throwing to his first read rarely making it to his second before taking off running. He's gunna need a lot of work on this.