Homer: Breaking down film of Luck, Griffin III and Tannehill

[Mahons21]

Nope and that's a good thing in that they will make their QB develop not stay in a comfort zone.

The counter-point to that is that said QB might not be all that great when they're outside their comfort zone, McNabb in my opinion is an example of this.

I do think they will adjust to take advantage of what their QB does well though.

I agree.

[Reaper 21]

I wanted Tannehill before this.

Now call me hyped.

count me in, but still take rg3 if he falls. if not trade back get tannehill.

not to mention he ran our offense last year

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Woohoo! Decided to open two threads on ES before crashing tonight.

1st thread - Weeden = Weinke

2nd thread - Tannehill = Jason Campbell

Ahh...I needed a good laugh. Let's all go into hyper sleep and wake up in April. This place is turning into a nuthouse.

[LaRonDontLikeUgly]

Just watched about 40 minutes of Tannehill in action (2011 season)... Let me first say that I really like Tannehilll as a prospect, a football player, and as a leader of men.

Let me follow that up by saying that his deep ball is horrendous. I guess I can see the Campbell comparisons in that area.... but when it comes to mobility, leadership, pocket presence, getting the ball out quickly, and looking off receivers-- Tannehill is lightyears ahead of where JC was coming out.

I think that Tannehill will eventually become a solid starter in the NFL, but I really hope the Skins don't draft him. He does not like throwing the ball more than 15 yards unless he is on the run (he does that pretty well) and I'm just sick of boring offenses and QBs who possess zero accuracy on a deep ball. He needs at least 2 years on the bench before he has any chance at being effective.

[DexterSackMachine]

As I said in another thread, I would not trade two first and a second to get RG3. I'd go as high as our 1st, 3rd, and one of our 4ths this year, but that's it. If Cleveland wants him, they are getting him anyways, so don't overpay, and don't mortgage the future. If the draft pick price is too high I'd take Tannehill (possibly after a small trade down) and be perfectly happy to get him and a starting caliber OL in round two.

On a side note, It is so entertaining to watch the follow-the-leader progression of this thread. This guy actually breaks down film and knows what to look for, but all of us average joe's who don't have a clue what to look for, have it all figured out. Of all the QB's in history, Tannehill is most like Jason Campbell....ummm....ok. Seems more like we as Redskin fans are still smarting from previous relationship failures. Hopefully Shanny and company will make a more factual, and less emotion-based decision than we the fans.

[TheGreek1973]

Ok so for those that say hey if we trade back a few spots RT is fine, who do you trade back with and is he going to be there at the spot you trade back to? Lets say Miami takes Flynn in FA, but you have Seattle to contend with. Now at #6 you will have a solid CB and a great RB in Richardson that some team might want to deal with, but their number one pick will not lock in RT because Seattle is lurking in the top 10.

Lets face it guys we will know more after FA but our team is in a no man's land at #6 for our main need with Barkley staying in college. That was HUGE.

[Audible_Red40]

Great read as usual.

One thing I found odd is Mr. Waldman he agrees with PK:

I wouldn’t trade up for Robert Griffin III. This is what Pat Kirwan of CBS Sports appropriately calls the “credit card” mentality to managing a draft. I actually believe Texas A&M quarterback Ryan Tannehill is not really that far behind Luck or Griffin.

and then:

In my eyes Tannehill is a first-round talent and if I’m the Redskins and need a quarterback, I trade down to collect picks or use the sixth pick on another need and trade back up to land Tannehill.

Kinda contradicts himself, both are credit card mentalities. If you trade up back into the first round, it costs you at very least next years number 1 pick and that current 2nd round selection.

None the less I did enjoy his input.

[Skinsinparadise]

Polian was just talking about Tannehill on Sirrius -- in short, he thinks he's a good WCO QB, he thinks he has actually faster NFL speed than RG III, in terms of using his legs and being elusive, compares him to Dalton -- but then says he values him as a high 2nd rounder.

[GWinSkins83]

Griffin is 6'2, maybe 6'2.5. Vick is 6'0 (generously) and 210. Vick was a poor passer in college, Griffin was a dominant passer in college. Vick and Griffin are nowhere near each other as far as intangibles go. That's why it's bothering people, because they literally have nothing in common EXCEPT "black QBs who can run".

I tried to bring this up earlier in this tread and got jumped by ppl saying I should have brought this up. But I see others are starting to see wht I seen monthes ago.

[Pick6]

Polian was just talking about Tannehill on Sirrius -- in short, he thinks he's a good WCO QB, he thinks he has actually faster NFL speed than RG III, in terms of using his legs and being elusive, compares him to Dalton -- but then says he values him as a high 2nd rounder.

Here is my problem. People want to take him at #6 and I think that would be a terrible decision. He probably won't even be ready the first season.

[pjfootballer]

In almost 30 years of watching football, outside of Peyton, Randall and Bernie Kozar are just about my two favourite non-'Skins QB's. Cunningham for everything and more you noted (he just excited the living piss out of you most every time he broke the huddle); and Kozar for being an undersized leftie that fought tooth and nail to try get it done for his team.Hail.

*Edit* I'd probably add Kelly and Moon in there too as those I'd pay to watch, but I always had a thing for the above two.

Kozar wasn't a leftie. He had a bad sidearm delivery, almost like Royals closer Dan Quisenberry. And Kosar was 6-5, 210. You may be thinking of Steve Young.

[Mahons21]

Kinda contradicts himself, both are credit card mentalities. If you trade up back into the first round, it costs you at very least next years number 1 pick and that current 2nd round selection.

None the less I did enjoy his input.

Are you sure? Judging by the trade chart, we could trade a 2nd (swap)/3rd rd picks this year to get Tannehill at 23-25, which is in my opinion very different than packaging 1 (swap), 1, 2, and possibly a little bit more. Furthermore if we are able to trade down we'll be able to use the extra ammo we acquire to trade back up into the 1st.

Personally I find the two scenarios very different.

[Skinsinparadise]

Are you sure? Judging by the trade chart, we could trade a 2nd (swap)/3rd rd picks this year to get Tannehill at 23-25, which is in my opinion very different than packaging 1 (swap), 1, 2, and possibly a little bit more. Furthermore if we are able to trade down we'll be able to use the extra ammo we acquire to trade back up into the 1st.

Personally I find the two scenarios very different.

Should be interesting, Grant Paulson, Skins insider for 106.7, said the other day his sources say Tannehill likely won't get past Seattle in the first round, depending on what they do in free agency. I'd say about half of the draft geeks right now seem to think Tannehill will go in the first 15 picks. Will see - likely depends on his pro day.

[Phat Hog]

Great post!!! Thanks for sharing!

[Mahons21]

Should be interesting, Grant Paulson, Skins insider for 106.7, said the other day his sources say Tannehill likely won't get past Seattle in the first round, depending on what they do in free agency. I'd say about half of the draft geeks right now seem to think Tannehill will go in the first 15 picks. Will see - likely depends on his pro day.

And other draft geeks say he's a 2nd rd QB, it's all speculation at this point. I'm in favor of drafting Tannehill where he presents value, which is in my opinion around the 20th overall pick. Though if the Shannahan's feel he presents value before then I have full faith in their decision, which is obviously far more informed than any of ours.

[The Tris]

Let's stop pretending that Tannehill will be available in the 20s.

Best case scenerio if you want Tannehill but not at 6 would be to trade back to 8, and maybe add a 2nd rounder, maybe.

Miami, Seattle, and KC will all be looking hard at Tannehill, expecting him to just fall miraculously to the second half of the first round is silly.

In a perfect world, RG would fall to six, and Tannehill would fall to 20. But we all know that the likelihood of that happening is extremely slim.

[Mahons21]

Let's stop pretending that Tannehill will be available in the 20s.

Best case scenerio if you want Tannehill but not at 6 would be to trade back to 8, and maybe add a 2nd rounder, maybe.

Miami, Seattle, and KC will all be looking hard at Tannehill, expecting him to just fall miraculously to the second half of the first round is silly.

I'm in favor of drafting people where they present value, not reaching on players. With the amount of talent likely to still be on the board at the 8th overall draft position, I have a tough time seeing the Redskins or any team for that matter taking Tannehill.

You were right last year that there was a large QB market, but the year before QBs weren't drafted as highly, the year before that Freeman (3rd QB drafted) was acquired at 17, year before that Joe Flacco 2nd QB taken was at 18, and the year before that Quinn was taken at 22nd (2nd QB drafted).

I have a hard time seeing KC being that involved in Tannehill with Cassel still on the squad, and I expect one of the Miami/Seattle teams to acquire a FA QB that will probably deter them from spending a 1st Rd draft pick on a QB, leaving possibly one team, and they may not even have an interest in Tannehill.

There's a lot of factors at play here.

[The Tris]

I agree that Tannehill doesn't present a good value at 8, much less 6.

However, odds are high at the very minimum one team picking between 7-15 will have a strong interest in the best available QB on the board. Which team exactly it is doesn't really matter, all that matters is that there is risk in passing on a player with the hopes that he falls to you later. All that matters is that demand is present this year.

This is doubly true for QBs, where positional value tends to skew "big board" value. Time and time again, teams reach on QB. Freeman might have lasted to 17, but what is also true about that draft was that none of the teams (CIN, OAK, JAX, GB, SF, BUF, DEN, WS, HOU, NO, SD) between 6 (first pick after the 2nd QB was taken) and 16 took a QB in the first four rounds. In fact, only SF (Nate Davis 5th) and DEN (Tom Brandstater 6th) even took QBs at all in 2009, which should tell you about how the demand for QBs made 2009 completely different from 2012.

Additionally, Freeman was a fringe first round guy, much like Tannehill. Lot's of place have him graded pre-draft as a 2nd rounder. He was called a more athletic, developmental Jason Campbell. Yet he went 17th. In fact, the Bucs traded up two spots to make sure they got him.

If you want Tannehill, you are going to probably have to reach on him, whether its us at 6, Miami at 9, Seattle at 11, or even KC at 12.

I am happy to wager with anyone who truly believes Tannehill will last past pick 15.

I dislike Tannehill as a first round QB greatly, I see nothing in him that makes him worth more than the 2nd you could pay for Foles or Osweiler.

But if you (the Redskins) like Tannehill, and think that he is a superior prospect than the other options, you have to be proactive and not sit and wait for the draft to come to you. Same goes for trading up for RGIII. Probably not going to equal big board value, and it will amount to a reach, but if you believe in one of them, you have to pay.

And if they pan out, well, there's no such thing as reaching on a franchise QB.

Or we can continue to sit back and hope that a franchise passer magically falls into our laps in the 2nd round.

[Mahons21]

I agree that Tannehill doesn't present a good value at 8, much less 6.

However, odds are high at the very minimum one team picking between 7-15 will have a strong interest in the best available QB on the board. Which team exactly it is doesn't really matter, all that matters is that there is risk in passing on a player with the hopes that he falls to you later.

There's also risk incorporated with reaching on a player. I imagine the Redskins have a range where they feel these guys present value and they're only going to take them in that range, furthermore they'll have a back up plan at QB I would assume. For example if you can't get Tannehill in the 20's than you start thinking about a guy like Weeden/Foles in the 2nd/3rd rd range.

This is doubly true for QB, where positional value tends to skew "big board" value. Time and time again, teams reach on QB. Freeman might have lasted to 17, but what is also true about that draft was that none of the teams (CIN, OAK, JAX, GB, SF, BUF, DEN, WS, HOU, NO, SD) between 6 (first pick after the 2nd QB was taken) and 16 took a QB in the first four rounds. In fact, only SF (Nate Davis 5th) and DEN (Tom Brandstater 6th) even took QBs at all in 2009, which should tell you about how the demand for QBs made 2009 completely different from 2012.

Fair enough but that's only for one of the drafts I listed. Looking back at past drafts over this decade it seems to be that last year was more of the exception than the rule.

If you want Tannehill, you are going to probably have to reach on him, whether its us at 6, Miami at 9, Seattle at 11, or even KC at 12.

We shall see.

I am happy to wager with anyone who truly believes Tannehill will last past pick 15.

I don't know where he'll go, every year the NFL draft has different quirks that surprise a lot of people, last year Aldon Smith was drafted at 7 which was slightly surprising, Locker went before Gabbert also surprising, Ponder went at 12 again surprising, Cam Jordan expected to go in the early teens dropped in the 20's.

I'll say this I won't be surprised if Tannehill is drafted before 15, nor will I be surprised if he's drafted after 15. This whole situation reminds me a lot of locker last year, some GMs saying they had a 2nd rd grade on him, others saying he's a top 5 pick etc.

[Missouri_Skins_Fan]

I would rather trade the farm for Luck or RG3, than take Tannehill at#6.

I'm serious...

If my options were Tannehill @#6

or

RG#/Luck for

#6 pick

2nd rd

3rd rd

1st in 2013

2nd 2013

1st in 2014

Fred Davis Tagged

I'm taking the farm trade.

Ask yourself....

When you get married?

Do you want the 12 toed, pigeon footed hottie who you met @ "Bob's Bar" with...no experience of boyfriend/girlfriend relationships? (She usually doesn't even catch their names)

or

Do you want the workout warrior divorce, who's husband ran out on her & just wants a family and honest husband who also just happens to be Megan Fox's sister.

Cause that is what this team will be marrying, too.

Point is...You have to make the smart decision & get the QB that most likely, will be the successful pick.

If it means paying more than you want...so be it.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I dislike Tannehill as a first round QB greatly, I see nothing in him that makes him worth more than the 2nd you could pay for Foles or Osweiler.

Tannehill is worth a pick in the 20-40s likely. Foles is a 3rd-5th round guy, and I'd draft Osweiler with the last pick of the draft, no earlier. But I agree with Tris that teams will reach on him, especially given his talent and physical gifts. I actually find that a team like Seattle or Kansas City is a good place for him - he has no pressure to start immediately, but at the same time he'll get a chance to compete for the starting job, which I find is more beneficial to development than say, sitting behind an established starter for 2-3 years.

The question is - are his holes the ones that can be developed on the bench? Or does he need to get into game situations to do so, which present problems of his own (crystallizing bad habits, picking up new ones, etc).

[The Tris]

There's also risk incorporated with reaching on a player. I imagine the Redskins have a range where they feel these guys present value and they're only going to take them in that range, furthermore they'll have a back up plan at QB I would assume. For example if you can't get Tannehill in the 20's than you start thinking about a guy like Weeden/Foles in the 2nd/3rd rd range.

Eventually you are going to stop drafting guys with starting QB potential, and end up with guys with backup QB potential.

At some point, it's almost not worth just drafting a young QB simply because he is young if he has such a slim chance of solving your QB issues, and you'd be better off just building other areas.

And then we're back to waiting and waiting for the perfect inflection point of talent and value in a QB, which rarely happens in a draft where so many people reach in QBs. It almost becomes a fool's errand.

Fair enough but that's only for one of the drafts I listed. Looking back at past drafts over this decade it seems to be that last year was more of the exception than the rule.

I tired to make the point that last year was not the exception a few days ago.

In today's NFL, excluding the #1, what first round QBs are not "reaches", based on the echo-chamber definition of what a reach is?

Locker - Reach

Gabbert - Probably not a reach

Ponder - Reach

Tebow - Reach

Sanchez - Reach

Freeman - Reach

Ryan - Reach

Flacco - Reach

Quinn - Reach

All these guys, with the exception of Gabbert, were taking higher than "draftniks" pegged them. Teams reach on QBs. It is always going to happen. Tannehill, when he goes in the top 11, will just be the next in a long line. RGIII, when he costs multiple #1s, will be a "reach" in terms of his value.

But if a player turns out to be a franchise passer, no one will ever call them a reach again. No one calls Matt Ryan a "reach" even though most mocks and big boards had him going no early than 9th overall.

Gabbert, and I should add Quinn, were the two guys who really fell to the point where they became value picks. Coincidence or not, Quinn has been an unmitigated disaster, and Gabbert does not appear to be trending well either.

[Mahons21]

Saying people reached on QBs, doesn't disprove that last years 4 QBs in the top 13 was an exception not a rule.

Furthermore, who's to say that MIA doesn't acquire Flynn, CLE acquires Orton to push McCoy, and SEA trades up to take RG3. Then we're in competition with a team that already has a descent starting QB and has few holes in KC. Or who's to say Manning doesn't go to MIA, Flynn to Browns, SEA trades up for RG3 etc. A lot can change after FA occurs, I don't think either of the two scenarios I've listed are unrealistic, and if either occurred there'd be little to no reason for us to do something as silly as taking Tannehill before the 11th/12th pick.

[Skinsinparadise]

And other draft geeks say he's a 2nd rd QB, it's all speculation at this point. I'm in favor of drafting Tannehill where he presents value, which is in my opinion around the 20th overall pick. Though if the Shannahan's feel he presents value before then I have full faith in their decision, which is obviously far more informed than any of ours.

Last year I recall the draft geeks thinking Ponder (some said 2nd rounder) might creep into the late 1st, he went higher, Locker was projected as a late first rounder (some said 2nd rounder) who might move higher into the first round. I'd say its almost a cliche at this point from pretty much every draft geek that QB's tend to go if anything higher than expected in recent years because of the premium placed on the position, with some exceptions. Heck just look at us, neither Ramsey or JC was projected by most as a first rounder. An ironic exception is Aaron Rogers, thought to be by many a top ten pick but fell in the draft.

I'd say right now the majority of draft geeks say Tannehill's value is a 2nd rounder but will be drafted in the first round -- I'd say about an even split of people saying he will land in the top 15 and the other saying 15-30. If last year is a guide, top 15 might be more likely but will see. I'll say this much, if the Skins love Tannehill, I think its risky to trade back to the 20s of the first round and expect him to be there. But if they aren't in love with the guy and lets say like Weeden almost as much, then what the heck. Right now at least, Weeden seems to be more of a late first round, 2nd round projected player. All of this could change -- they could look like studs or bomb or whatever during pro day. And yeah the draft geeks could have it wrong, but it seems like when they are wrong its more likely underestimating not overestimating how high the QBs go.

---------- Post added February-23rd-2012 at 07:17 PM ----------

Saying people reached on QBs, doesn't disprove that last years 4 QBs in the top 13 was an exception not a rule.

Furthermore, who's to say that MIA doesn't acquire Flynn, CLE acquires Orton to push McCoy, and SEA trades up to take RG3. Then we're in competition with a team that already has a descent starting QB and has few holes in KC. Or who's to say Manning doesn't go to MIA, Flynn to Browns, SEA trades up for RG3 etc. A lot can change after FA occurs, I don't think either of the two scenarios I've listed are unrealistic, and if either occurred there'd be little to no reason for us to do something as silly as taking Tannehill before the 11th/12th pick.

Whether QBs go higher than projected or lower isn't IMO the operative point. if you were Shanny and lets say you loved Tannehill and don't like the other guys below him -- why would you take the chance that last year as you say was the exception to the rule? What if you guess wrong. And personally I am not even a Tannehill guy but if i was i wouldn't feel comfortable trading down that far and hoping to get lucky.

[Mahons21]

Last year I recall the draft geeks thinking Ponder (some said 2nd rounder) might creep into the late 1st, he went higher, Locker was projected as a late first rounder (some said 2nd rounder) who might move higher into the first round. I'd say its almost a cliche at this point from pretty much every draft geek that QB's tend to go if anything higher than expected in recent years because of the premium placed on the position, with some exceptions. Heck just look at us, neither Ramsey or JC was projected by most as a first rounder. An ironic exception is Aaron Rogers, thought to be by many a top ten pick but fell in the draft.

There's also Clausen and Quinn, furthermore I think "reaching" on a player halfway through the first round is far different than reaching on a player at 6 or 8, when there are most likely still elite game changing prospects on the board.

I'd say right now the majority of draft geeks say Tannehill's value is a 2nd rounder but will be drafted in the first round -- I'd say about an even split of people saying he will land in the top 15 and the other saying 15-30. If last year is a guide, top 15 might be more likely but will see. I'll say this much, if the Skins love Tannehill, I think its risky to trade back to the 20s of the first round and expect him to be there. But if they aren't in love with the guy and lets say like Weeden almost as much, then what the heck. Right now at least, Weeden seems to be more of a late first round, 2nd round projected player. All of this could change -- they could look like studs or bomb or whatever during pro day. And yeah the draft geeks could have it wrong, but it seems like when they are wrong its more likely underestimating not overestimating how high the QBs go.

If the Skins "love him" as much as you suggest than he'll be higher on their big-board than other players, that doesn't mean they're reaching for him, only that they drafted him higher than where the media (who's quite wrong in many instance) had him projected being drafted.

I don't see the Skins having Tannehill ranked in the 20-25 range and then reaching on him at 6 because he's at a position of need, or they're scared someone else will take them. The Skins showed great patience last year and allowed the draft to come to them, I hope they do the same this year, even if it means we don't land a top 3 QB prospect.