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

[Chip80]

I say they draft him and use him as a receiver. Don't have any of those that are top notch either. :pfft:

[SilkyDiamonds]

Curious as to how many 1st rd "project" QBs succeed in the NFL?

In that I mean, hitting on a bona fide non project starting QB in the 1st is already hard. Hitting on a "project" QBin the 1st has to be even harder.

[Skinsinparadise]

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 follow your point but it's about Shanny's definition of reaching. Our thoughts about where a player is a reach or Mel Kiper or whomever is interesting for the board and discussion sake but IMO not even a little relevant to the point at hand.

If the Skins "love him" as much as you suggest

Where did I say the Skins love him? How would I know who they love or not? My point was much simpler, i was saying that there is a large number of draft geeks who think Tannehill is this year's Ponder and will crack the top 15. And IF Shanny loves Tannehill, he might not want to chance it and trade to the later first round and expect Tannehill to still be there.

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.

Again, I said what if Shanny LOVES Tannehill and doesn't like the QB's ranked lower. If that is the case I doubt he cares whether Tannehill lets say is ranked below Brockers or Coples or whomever on his board. Heck he's admitted he's been looking at tape of college Qb's every morning from the middle of the season. He hasn't been shy making the point that QB is on his to do list. I doubt he has the leeway he had last year to skip drafting a Qb in the draft but will see. of course free agency is going to influence this too.

Personally, I am not impressed with Tannehill, I am far from clamoring for him. But i recognize that judging college QB's is perhaps one of the most complex things to do for scouts. So whomever Shanny likes and drafts, I'll trust it. My hunch is we trade up for RG III, and am on board with that, too.

[Mahons21]

SIP, when I said If Shanny likes him as much as you suggest, I was referencing your hypothetical situation not implying you believed Shannahan liked him that much.

[Skinsinparadise]

SIP, when I said If Shanny likes him as much as you suggest, I was referencing your hypothetical situation not implying you believed Shannahan liked him that much.

Ok sorry, what threw me off is when you say Shanny loves him as "much as you suggest" I took "suggest" as you saying I was suggesting it to be true. Who do you want them to draft?

[Mahons21]

Ok sorry, what threw me off is when you say Shanny loves him as "much as you suggest" I took "suggest" as you saying I was suggesting it to be true. Who do you want them to draft?

I can see how it was confusing.

Whoever presents the best value, which in my opinion would be RG3 at 4+, Tannehill at 20+, Weeden 2nd rd, Foles/Cousins 3rd rd+.

this tandler article sums up my views perfectly.

http://www.csnwashington.com/blog/nationals-talk/post/At-QB-its-a-matter-of-value?blockID=657058&feedID=6355

Since the Redskins have been without a good quarterback for so long, there is a tendency for many fans to want the best quarterback available and viewed in isolation, that could well be RG3. But the idea is not to get the best player -- it’s to end up with a better team.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Tandler greatly overestimates the caliber of player we're likely to get with the picks we'd be trading to move up, and in any case, the price of moving up I think is dropping every day. At the end of the day, you're trading 2 or 3 decent prospects for one great prospect. I think the issue is that people don't think there's much difference in the big picture between "decent" and "great". I think, given that we need an elite QB more than anything else, that logic doesn't hold.

The idea of "maximizing value" in this scenario is ridiculously flawed because it doesn't consider impact. Even if Weeden merely becomes a solid starter (and I like him as the 2nd rounder IF we try and fail to get RGIII), and we pick up 2 other good starters with the other picks we didn't use, if RGIII ends up being a star, his impact would be far greater than those guys combined. Hell, if all of those guys become stars at their positions except the non RGIII QBs, RGIII's impact on the team would still trump the bookend RT, stud corner and playmaking WR combined.

And frankly, why are people so eager to get the cheapest deal they possibly can at the QB position, while using premium picks on just about anywhere else? Because the Patriots did it once? There's something that strikes me as wrong about the logic. It seems to be saying "Hey, there's almost no difference in quality between Griffin, Weeden and Tannehill, but there's NO way we can get a playmaking WR, a stud corner and a bookend RT anywhere else other than those high picks we wouldn't have used on RGIII".

There's a much better chance that RGIII pans out as a franchise QB than the 2nd round pick we'd hypothetically trade and the 1st round pick we hypothetically trade become stars at their positions. Of course, if we have another awful season next year then it's different and the trade looks a bit worse (though I honestly cannot see any possible way we're worse next year)

If anything, I'm more worried about there being so little interest in the #2nd and #3rd that the Rams and Vikings stand pat (or horror of horrors, the Vikings take RGIII - I would if I were the Vikings GM, though I'd get pennies on the dollar for Ponder, but teams need to stop being wedded to mediocre QBs hoping they'll develop.). I think Holmgren will pass on RGIII if they have Flynn and McCoy on the roster, but then what do they do with that pick? It's still too high for the Seahawks, Dolphins (who are actually missing picks) and maybe the Chiefs unless they go crazy with their offer. At the same time, Blackmon is certainly off the board, and #4 may be too high to take Richardson, and they don't need Clairborne. Could they take Brockers at #4? I don't see it, especially seeing they don't run a 3-4 anymore.

I think if a scenario where they're at #4 and they have Flynn, they'll:

Take RGIII and force a team to move up for him

Trade with us, picking up some extra picks, and draft Richardson

Draft Richardson

Draft Brockers

[Skinsinparadise]

I can see how it was confusing.

Whoever presents the best value, which in my opinion would be RG3 at 4+, Tannehill at 20+, Weeden 2nd rd, Foles/Cousins 3rd rd+.

this tandler article sums up my views perfectly.

http://www.csnwashington.com/blog/nationals-talk/post/At-QB-its-a-matter-of-value?blockID=657058&feedID=6355

I read it. the potential problem with that theory it presumes that all of these guys are going to be good to different degrees. it's rare for that to break out that way. And I am not saying i can decipher who are the marquee guys versus not. But what if you have more IMO realistic type of scenarios like this:

1. You love RG III, and nobody projected below him. you sort of like Tannehill but you think he's 2 years away and Danny won't have the patience to wait it out with a mediocre free agent as we wait. So

Do you trade up for RG III even if you pay a big price? you are sort of boxed in, unless Danny tells Shanny you got time, don't worry about Qb this year.

2. You love Peyton, you don't want to trade up but don't like any of the young guys in the draft aside from Tannehill.

you miss out on Peyton, and hear if you don't take Tannehill at #6, Seattle will take him at 12. what do you do then?

I can come up with a dozen scenarios like this that require some complex decision making. I am presuming that Shanny does have pressure on higher up from ownership to make a move this off season. I don't think he had that type of pressure last off season based on how he approached it. But if Danny tells him, hey if we don't do it we don't it this off season -- then yeah he'd have some flexibility. But I'd presume there is a decent chance he has some pressure to fix the position this off season.

Tandler's article reads to me like you are going to the store to buy a candy bar and there are multiple options and they are all good, there are simply different degrees of good, so do you want to walk out with a candy bar and some popcorn or do you want the high end candy bar without the popcorn. Either way we will get a good candy bar and lets look at what else comes or doesn't come with that candy bar and factor that as to what we should buy. To me its a very Pollyanna thought. Te presumption is a big one, which is all options are attractive to different degrees. Maybe. and Yeah we'd be sitting pretty if Shanny thinks this is an amazing draft for QBs, he likes RG III, he likes the free agents, he likes Tannehill, he likes Weeden, all represent attractive options. Yeah if that's going on, I'd love it, we'd be in the drivers seat. But somehow I doubt its the case.

[KCClybun]

And frankly, why are people so eager to get the cheapest deal they possibly can at the QB position, while using premium picks on just about anywhere else? Because the Patriots did it once? There's something that strikes me as wrong about the logic. It seems to be saying "Hey, there's almost no difference in quality between Griffin, Weeden and Tannehill, but there's NO way we can get a playmaking WR, a stud corner and a bookend RT anywhere else other than those high picks we wouldn't have used on RGIII".

It's a side effect of 1.) the whole "we won three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks" thing where all you need is the Hogs and the Posse and Riggins and you can win regardless of the quarterback, and 2.) being jaded over Ramsey and Campbell's failures and looking at those failures through a prism of every other quarterback who has failed rather than examining the reasons why they and every other bust failed.

History dictates that's it the exact opposite; that your chances of finding a franchise quarterback in the later rounds are very low, but finding one early (while basically a coin flip) is still a better option. You can find that playmaking wide receiver, a solid corner and a solid right tackle in the later rounds.

But, until proven otherwise, you're always going to find people who still have that mentality from the 80s, where our quarterbacks were "mediocre" but when won with the Hogs and the Posse and that's the template for building a team.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

This isn't just Skins fans though. Every fanbase wants the "cheap" option at QB. People have a highly skewed view on why QBs fail, and always chalk it up to not having enough weapons or not having this or not having that. Furthermore, because of Tom Brady and similar players, EVERYONE thinks they can find Tom Brady deep in the draft. People look at a late rounder succeeding and a first rounder failing and go "Ah ha, QBs are a crapshoot, might as well take one in the late rounds seeing he's just as likely to succeed as the first rounder". Of course, nobody uses this logic for other positions, despite it being far more applicable. Of the top 15 or so WRs, only Fitz, AJ, CJ are "high" first rounders, and about half of them aren't first rounders at all. For CBs, the best CB is a #15 pick, and a lot of the other top CBs were drafted in the 2nd to 4th round range. Our Josh Wilson was a 3rd rounder. And so it goes.

[The Tris]

Whoever presents the best value, which in my opinion would be RG3 at 4+, Tannehill at 20+, Weeden 2nd rd, Foles/Cousins 3rd rd+

I think in a vacuum, those are the dead on correct values. I'd be more specific that Weeden is like 50+, Foles is 70+, and Cousins is 85+.

And I would be shocked if more than one of those guys made it to those big board value points.

[GibbsFactor]

For the record, drafting a potential franchise QB at any spot represents value.

That is all. You may carry on.

[Mahons21]

I read it. the potential problem with that theory it presumes that all of these guys are going to be good to different degrees. it's rare for that to break out that way. And I am not saying i can decipher who are the marquee guys versus not.

Thus we can only look at them from a skill-set stand point as of now, and IMO all these guys offer a descent skill set that if developed properly could lead to said player being a starting QB in this league for quite some time.

But what if you have more IMO realistic type of scenarios like this:

1. You love RG III, and nobody projected below him. you sort of like Tannehill but you think he's 2 years away and Danny won't have the patience to wait it out with a mediocre free agent as we wait. So

Do you trade up for RG III even if you pay a big price? you are sort of boxed in, unless Danny tells Shanny you got time, don't worry about Qb this year.

2. You love Peyton, you don't want to trade up but don't like any of the young guys in the draft aside from Tannehill.

you miss out on Peyton, and hear if you don't take Tannehill at #6, Seattle will take him at 12. what do you do then?

1.) I don't think there's a single hypothetical scenario you can play out that MS hasn't already gone through with his FO and scouting dept.

2.) I don't think their solution to any of the scenarios is to reach on a QB.

3.) In most scenarios you create the QB needy teams will be taken care of most likely by the 2nd RD, making a Weeden a worst case scenario. But let's say Weeden get's taken, I could then see the Redskins possibly trading a 3rd for Hoyer, and taking a Foles/Cousins in the 4th/5th round.

Simply put there's plenty of avenues the Redskins can take this season to improve the QB position, all of which have QBs that possess a skill-set that the two Shannahans could work with and develop.

I can come up with a dozen scenarios like this that require some complex decision making. I am presuming that Shanny does have pressure on higher up from ownership to make a move this off season. I don't think he had that type of pressure last off season based on how he approached it. But if Danny tells him, hey if we don't do it we don't it this off season -- then yeah he'd have some flexibility. But I'd presume there is a decent chance he has some pressure to fix the position this off season.

I'd rather not get into hypothetical situations that involve a lot of your own opinion, IE Snyder turning up the heat. Snyder has been exactly who he promised he would be to this FO, he doesn't hang around at practice etc. there's nothing to suggest he's going to revert back to his old ways. Furthermore, why would he fire MS? What respectable coach is going to come here after that? Probably only one that wants money.

Tandler's article reads to me like you are going to the store to buy a candy bar and there are multiple options and they are all good, there are simply different degrees of good, so do you want to walk out with a candy bar and some popcorn or do you want the high end candy bar without the popcorn. Either way we will get a good candy bar and lets look at what else comes or doesn't come with that candy bar and factor that as to what we should buy. To me its a very Pollyanna thought. Te presumption is a big one, which is all options are attractive to different degrees. Maybe. and Yeah we'd be sitting pretty if Shanny thinks this is an amazing draft for QBs, he likes RG III, he likes the free agents, he likes Tannehill, he likes Weeden, all represent attractive options. Yeah if that's going on, I'd love it, we'd be in the drivers seat. But somehow I doubt its the case.

Again they all have positives in their respective skill-sets and if they're developed properly everyone of these QBs has the physical tools to succeed. I don't see anything wrong with what he said.

---------- Post added February-24th-2012 at 03:25 PM ----------

I think in a vacuum, those are the dead on correct values. I'd be more specific that Weeden is like 50+, Foles is 70+, and Cousins is 85+.

And I would be shocked if more than one of those guys made it to those big board value points.

really? I could see all of them making it to those values (though I don't predict that's what will happen), but everything is going to depend on FA/trades etc.

[Skinsinparadise]

Thus we can only look at them from a skill-set stand point as of now, and IMO all these guys offer a descent skill set that if developed properly could lead to said player being a starting QB in this league for quite some time.

JC passed for a fairly high % rate in his senior year in college, had a strong arm, was a big guy but still could run decently. Nice skill set, could we develop him into a franchise Qb, apparently not. It's a similar case to a lot of QBs drafted over the years and ended up mediocre or busts. But you say "starting" QB -- do you want a guy that is an OK starter or an elite talent? If we are trying to draft the next lets say Kyle Orton type then agree, what the heck maybe Weeden becomes that guy, Kirk Cousins. We can draft that projected 2nd rounder type like a JC or Patrick Ramsey and roll the dice. But if we want an elite player, the odds don't easily work playing this method with the 2nd tier prospects for value -- except again if Shanny thinks one of these guys who isn't considered elite is really a diamond in the rough that on rare occasions slip through the radar like Drew Brees.

Edit: here's an article you might not like. talks up Tannehill as a top 10 pick via multiple sources, good ones too like Gil Brandt and talks about how Qb's tend to go higher then expected.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/don_banks/02/24/ryan.tannehill/index.html?eref=si_latest

1.) I don't think there's a single hypothetical scenario you can play out that MS hasn't already gone through with his FO and scouting dept.

2.) I don't think their solution to any of the scenarios is to reach on a QB.

That's my point. I only presented two hypothetical and suggested there are plenty more. But I think you are missing my point. maybe an example will help. Many draft geeks thought Locker had a 2nd round value. Some said late first. Few thought he was top 15 but some did. But if i am the Titans, it matters nothing what other people think it matters what I think. And if I think Locker is a top 10 pick and is a stud. I take him. am not going to risk an off chance that he's still there in the late 20s. If I think he's a franchise guy, i am not going to risk it just to see if I can get lucky and get him at a better value. Likewise IF Shanny loves Tannehill, just like Locker, there are people in the business projecting him as a top 10 pick. If Shanny loves Tannehill and doesn't want to risk losing him, you take him in the top 15, as opposed to risk seeing if he's there in the late first round.

The draft geeks more or less tout the Qb talent of pretty much every guy projected to go in the top 3 rounds. Just because lets say Todd McShay says Kirk Cousins can develop, has a good skill set, leadership skills, etc -- doesn't mean it translates to reality -- these guys are paid to sell these guys weaknesses and strengths. But I'd presume Shanny is looking at these guys with a finer eye, and i really doubt he really likes a whole bunch of Qbs in this draft and would be comfortable with a bunch of these guys down the draft. The trend with Qb isn't like RBs where hey if you don't get the top guy the guy in round 3 is almost as likely to be good.

I'd rather not get into hypothetical situations that involve a lot of your own opinion, IE Snyder turning up the heat. Snyder has been exactly who he promised he would be to this FO, he doesn't hang around at practice etc. there's nothing to suggest he's going to revert back to his old ways. Furthermore, why would he fire MS? What respectable coach is going to come here after that? Probably only one that wants money.

Last year I argued some with DG on this point, him saying that last off season was checkered because MS failed to do the most important thing and that is get the QB position right. I disagreed saying, this is experiment #2, he did well in the draft but I think he needs to get it right in year #3, and last year he'd get his 2nd mulligan. Granted this part is my opinion, but I would say the idea that Shanny needs to get his guy this year is the conventional thought at least by the media. I think for example, if they sign Orton, and don't draft a QB but he says look we are very confident with what we have -- and Orton ends up mediocre and the team goes 5-11 -- yeah I suspect his job is endanger. It would be him striking out on the position three years in a row.

---------- Post added February-24th-2012 at 04:01 PM ----------

For the record, drafting a potential franchise QB at any spot represents value.

That is all. You may carry on.

I am with you dude there. And to play off of this point, yeah I'll say it now, and not becuase I have a strong take on any of these guys but just from the stand point of playing the odds

RG III, Weeden, Tannehill, Cousins, Foles -- 1 becomes a stud, 1 is maybe good, 1 is a backup, and 2 are busts.