2012 Rookie QB Discussion

[dsciambi]

They put Tannehill at #1 based on one game? What about the other 3 where he looked terrible?

Same deal with Weeden over Wilson. Dolby! Over Wilson!

Sports writers are bad.

[darrelgreenie]

They put Tannehill at #1 based on one game? What about the other 3 where he looked terrible?

Que? who is this 'they' and what are you talking about?

[SteveFromYellowstone]

They put Tannehill at #1 based on one game? What about the other 3 where he looked terrible?

Same deal with Weeden over Wilson. Dolby! Over Wilson!

Sports writers are bad.

This is a week by week thing, not cumulative. They are saying Tannehill had the best performance THIS week (although I still disagree).

[pjfootballer]

Wow, 26-41, 63%, 431 yards, 1 TD and 2 INTs and this is his best game? The 63% is good, the yardage was because Brian Hartline was wide fricking open all day long without a defender within 20 yards of him. 1 TD to 2 INTs sucks. Whatever. I know they probably don't want to keep putting Griffin #1 every week so they keep other readers interested, but overall Griffin is ahead of all of them.

[darrelgreenie]

Did watch the game? Because reading the box score and looking at some highlights won't give you the whole picture.

Hartline got behind the defense 2 twice, one of them was a blown coverage.

The rest of Tannehill's throws were to covered receivers.

[NewCliche21]

You can't play that, "Yeah, but . . ." game with statistics. Tannehill did what he did, and we know that RGIII is lightyears beyond him.

Just because I say that Zoe Deschanel is pretty doesn't take away from Jessica Alba being drop-dead gorgeous.

Let him have a worthless Week 4 rookie ranking. It'll be hard to read it with the glare coming off of those new Lombardis that we're getting.

[darrelgreenie]

You can't play that, "Yeah, but . . ." game with statistics. Tannehill did what he did, and we know that RGIII is lightyears beyond him.

You can't evaluate play from a box score.

If you didn't watch the game, you have no ground to comment on the quality of Tannehill's game.

All you can do is repeat the stat line.....but counting stats are merely record they're not an assessment or evaluation.

Tannehill played a damn good game his worst miscue was the fumble, but b/c you guys didn't watch the game you might not know about his fumble unless you checked that part of the stat line.

Hey, I'm one of the few that thought Griff was and remains a better prospect then Luck.

But, if you ask me who had a better game as passing the ball on Sunday the answer is Tannehill.

But then again, you would need to have watched the game to understand it.

[NewCliche21]

You can't evaluate play from a box score.

If you didn't watch the game, you have no ground to comment on the quality of Tannehill's game.

All you can do is repeat the stat line.....but counting stats are merely record they're not an assessment or evaluation.

Tannehill played a damn good game his worst miscue was the fumble, but b/c you guys didn't watch the game you might not know about his fumble unless you checked that part of the stat line.

Hey, I'm one of the few that thought Griff was and remains a better prospect then Luck.

But, if you ask me who had a better game as passing the ball on Sunday the answer is Tannehill.

But then again, you would need to have watched the game to understand it.

We're on the same side.

I did watch the game. Stat lines don't mean a damned thing. Technically RGIII fumbled, too, even though I thought that it was a touchdown. That doesn't take away from his game.

I've been a big Tannehill supporter for a while now. I think that he's been very underrated as a passer, and I think that his game was great on Sunday. What I was arguing against was people who say, "Yeah, but if that receiver hadn't beaten the corner or there weren't a blown assignment, then it wouldn't have happened." You can't do that. EVERY game has plays like that, so you can't just remove them for Tannehill.

Do I think that he's a better quarterback or passer than RGIII? Hell no. Do I think that he's still very good and had a great game as a passer this week? Absolutely.

[darrelgreenie]

Gotcha, I thought you were saying Tannehill's stats line is how he played, misunderstanding.

I did watch the game. Stat lines don't mean a damned thing. Technically RGIII fumbled, too, even though I thought that it was a touchdown. That doesn't take away from his game.

Do I think that he's a better quarterback or passer than RGIII? Hell no. Do I think that he's still very good and had a great game as a passer this week? Absolutely.

Actually, right now I think Tannehill is a better passer then Griffin because of the type and frequency of the throws he attempts and completes.

Griffin is tightly managed with a lot of short throws and screens and some play action, Tannehill more or less has the training wheels off and is throws more straight drop back full progression read passes w/ intermediate throws.

But, watching the Dolphin's game was frustrating because the Dolphin's spread the field out 3-4 wide which gave Tannehill some easy reads and got him in a good passing rhythm which helped him convert 3rd downs with his arm.

And I think Griffin is more then capable of attack defenses in the same manner.

I think our personnel is better then the Dolphin's when it comes to spread formation 3-4 wide receivers, yet we don't use it as often as other teams with lesser WR talent.

I can't wait until Griffin is allowed to spread the field 3-4 wide receivers and attack with the passing game.

First things first, our offense is kicking tail but imo you add spread formation passing + the read option running game from spread formations our already good offense becomes even better.

The efficiency and 3rd down conversion rate would improve imo.

[darrelgreenie]

Tannehill......37 attempts/24 comp 64.9% 257 yards 7.3 YPA

Griffin...........25 attempts/16 comp 64.0% 145 yards 5.8 YPA

Luck.............21 attempts/8 comp 38.1% 125 yards 7.1 YPA

[Mahons21]

I don't mean to take away from the discussion, but one has to wonder whether the Skins would be better off with Tannehill, Jenkins in our secondary, what looks to be a top 10 first round pick next year, and a another first rounder. That turns our secondary from a weakness to damn near a strength with Hall/Wilson/Jenkins back there. Next years first rounder could be spent on a top flight safety, RT, or we could trade back and get a pocket collapsing NT.

I was probably one of Tannehills largest supporters and don't mean to re-hash old debates, but he was athletic enough to run the scheme, and we may not have had to change as much of the offensive playbook.

I'm not saying we should have taken Tannehill, but I do think there is an argument to be made already, and since Tannehill was widely considered to be so raw, it is expected there's a lot more potential to tap into.

What do you think DG?

[Ghost of]

Mahons, I think Tannehill looked like Henne to me, not athetically, of course but in terms of how he "delivers." Like basically, I had no faith this would be a SB winner one day.

[darrelgreenie]

I don't mean to take away from the discussion, but one has to wonder whether the Skins would be better off with Tannehill, Jenkins in our secondary, what looks to be a top 10 first round pick next year, and a another first rounder. That turns our secondary from a weakness to damn near a strength with Hall/Wilson/Jenkins back there. Next years first rounder could be spent on a top flight safety, RT, or we could trade back and get a pocket collapsing NT.

I was probably one of Tannehills largest supporters and don't mean to re-hash old debates, but he was athletic enough to run the scheme, and we may not have had to change as much of the offensive playbook.

I'm not saying we should have taken Tannehill, but I do think there is an argument to be made already, and since Tannehill was widely considered to be so raw, it is expected there's a lot more potential to tap into.

What do you think DG?

Greetings bro, lol about taking away from the discussion this thread was dead anyway, proly gonna be just me and you shooting the breeze.

As a rule I'm against trading up. I love, absolutely love Griffin as prospect, I'm part of the group that thinks Griffin is the superior prospect to Luck. And despite my high opinion of Griffin he somehow has managed to surpass them. But, I'm against trading up for the reasons you mention. You weaken your chances to build a team when you trade away several resources to acquire 1 resource.

Hopefully this franchise will be able to build a championship team around Griffin despite our limited top draft resources.

[Mahons21]

Greetings bro, lol about taking away from the discussion this thread was dead anyway, proly gonna be just me and you shooting the breeze.

Haha fair enough. BTW have you gotten the new Madden? If so let's get a game in, I just picked up my copy last week.

As a rule I'm against trading up. I love, absolutely love Griffin as prospect, I'm part of the group that thinks Griffin is the superior prospect to Luck. And despite my high opinion of Griffin he somehow has managed to surpass them. But, I'm against trading up for the reasons you mention. You weaken your chances to build a team when you trade away several resources to acquire 1 resource.

We're in total agreement here regarding trading up. Mike is going to have to really make some tricky moves, or be very successful with mid-late rd draft picks. MS needs to find more than mediocre mid rd RB talents (Helu/Royster), and actually start really hitting on these draft picks. Guys like Liberius are going to need to develop into solid starters.

To be honest I'm growing skeptical of MS' the personnel executive. There are the McNabb/Brown blunders, and then there's the fact that not a lot of the guys we've drafted have really done all that much. Outside of his two first round draft picks, and Alf, I can't think of any Redskins Mike drafted that have really impressed me. Though to be fair, an injury has hampered JJ.

Hopefully this franchise will be able to build a championship team around Griffin despite our limited top draft resources.

I really hope so, but again I question if Mike is the personnel executive to do it. I will never questions Mike's offensive ingenuity, but his track record as far as personnel is concerned, isn't all that great (outside of Marshall/Cutler).

[darrelgreenie]

Haha fair enough. BTW have you gotten the new Madden? If so let's get a game in, I just picked up my copy last week.

I have 13, haven't played it much.

What time is good for you?

We're in total agreement here regarding trading up. Mike is going to have to really make some tricky moves, or be very successful with mid-late rd draft picks. MS needs to find more than mediocre mid rd RB talents (Helu/Royster), and actually start really hitting on these draft picks. Guys like Liberius are going to need to develop into solid starters.

RB is one area that i'm sure Mike & Bobby will be able to find and coach talent.

I have nothing against the Helu pick, its just bad luck with injuries.

Even with Morris outstanding production I still think Helu would be the better back if healthy.

To be honest I'm growing skeptical of MS' the personnel executive. There are the McNabb/Brown blunders, and then there's the fact that not a lot of the guys we've drafted have really done all that much. Outside of his two first round draft picks, and Alf, I can't think of any Redskins Mike drafted that have really impressed me. Though to be fair, an injury has hampered JJ.

I've alway felt that Mike Shanahan the coach was Mike Shanahan the GM's only saving grace.

Imo he's made some predictable win now blunders, some of which you mention.

Then there are others like Atogwe and Jamal Brown.

And this years crop of Safety 'upgrades'.

I liked the H picks, Helu, Hankerson and Hurt.

Helu has been snake bit with injuries and Hankerson has been slow developing and might not pan out but at the time I thought Hank was a steal.

Didn't know who Hurt was but thought he played well in a pinch as a rookie.

I also really like the Jordan Bernstine pick but his season got erased b/c he blew out his knee.

Ultimately, our success will be linked to Griffin's other worldly ability and Mike's ability to build a top level offense more then his prowess as a GM.

---------- Post added October-10th-2012 at 04:06 PM ----------

Oh yeah, Jordan Black at swing OT

Cundiff over Gano

But, every FO makes mistakes, you gotta break some eggs to make an omlete.

We got 3 key pieces to the puzzles though: franchise caliber QB, LT and (2) edge rushers

[Hiro]

To be honest I'm growing skeptical of MS' the personnel executive. There are the McNabb/Brown blunders, and then there's the fact that not a lot of the guys we've drafted have really done all that much. Outside of his two first round draft picks, and Alf, I can't think of any Redskins Mike drafted that have really impressed me. Though to be fair, an injury has hampered JJ.

Shanahan as a personnel executive isn't on the same level of a Kevin Colbert (Steelers) or a Ozzie Newsome, but he's not nearly as bad as you would suggest.

While some of the blunders for major moves we have had have been BAD (McNabb, Atogwe, Brown), there have been a number of really good moves actually.

In terms of the draft, with our limited picks in 2010, we got Trent Williams and Perry Riley. One who is showing his development as a top 10 tackle this year, and the other who is an insanely solid and underrated defender who could very well ascend as the leader on this defense. 2011, we really cleaned up and brought in a major influx of talent on both sides of the ball. 2012? We have two rookie starters at two of the most important positions on the offense (QB and RB) and we have one of the most productive offenses in the entire league.

In terms of FA acquisitions, you cannot downplay us getting Kory, Chris Chester or Tyler Polumbus. Our offensive line is steadily gelling and has shown to be extremely functional in the type of offense we're running. At receiver? Garcon and Morgan have been major upgrades and have quickly taken on starting roles.

In trades OUTSIDE of the draft (outside of McNabb and Brown), we're not exactly straight up whiffing, but it is the one place we haven't been super hot on. Keeping in mind that we have made 6 trades (I believe) in Shanahan's 3 years for McNabb, Brown, Carriker, Beck, Hightower and Gaffney, only 2 are left on the squad (Brown and Carriker) with one of them being almost a certain goner after this season with the rise of Polumbus. But to get most of these players, we haven't given up much. It was only the McNabb and Brown trades where we gave up a substantial amount of picks (2nd and a 4th for McNabb, a 3rd for Brown), but the rest we got for pretty much nothing and it worked for our purposes at the time.

If there is one thing Mike hasn't done a great job of, it's assembling the best coaching staff possible. Kyle is a fantastic offensive coordinator, but both Haslett and Danny Smith REALLY need to go. Plus, Bob Slowik and Raheem Morris aren't exactly wowing me.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I don't mean to take away from the discussion, but one has to wonder whether the Skins would be better off with Tannehill, Jenkins in our secondary, what looks to be a top 10 first round pick next year, and a another first rounder. That turns our secondary from a weakness to damn near a strength with Hall/Wilson/Jenkins back there. Next years first rounder could be spent on a top flight safety, RT, or we could trade back and get a pocket collapsing NT.

I was probably one of Tannehills largest supporters and don't mean to re-hash old debates, but he was athletic enough to run the scheme, and we may not have had to change as much of the offensive playbook.

I'm not saying we should have taken Tannehill, but I do think there is an argument to be made already, and since Tannehill was widely considered to be so raw, it is expected there's a lot more potential to tap into.

What do you think DG?

To jump in on this one... I would rather have one John Elway than Ken O'Brien and the entire New York Sack Exchange. It might take a little longer to put talent around your guy in that kind of trade-off but the QB position is awfully important in this league, to the point where the jump from a very good QB to a great QB is worth an awful lot.

[darrelgreenie]

What if Griffin and Tannehill both end up being SB caliber QBs?

[Enter Apotheosis]

What if Griffin and Tannehill both end up being SB caliber QBs?

Nothing changes. You do the best with the information that you have at the time and NO ONE was putting Tannehill on the same plane as Griffin in college or through the draft.

If Tannehill proves to be Montana-like and Griffin is more Kelly when it comes to Super Bowl success, then (all other things equal) obviously the Redskins wouldn't have made the best choice but they still picked up a damn good player and got plenty of bang for their buck.

[KCClybun]

I think Tannehill has played much better than anyone has expected, but I don't think he's played better than Robert to this point. Some weeks I've thought Tannehill has looked better than Luck has.

As someone who was pretty high on Tannehill, I'd still say trading up for Robert was the right move. Moving up ensured that we would get the quarterback we wanted; even though Stephen Ross is a friggin' moron, there was no guarantee that he wouldn't have traded up over us to get Tannehill (to avoid the riot that would'v ensued had he drafted just about anyone else), and Mike would've settled for a guy he merely liked instead of gotten the player he loved, if he ever really wanted Tannehill at all.

Going Tannehill also probably would've meant going with Rex as the starter for at least the start of the season, and either Beck would still be hanging around with his sucky self, or we'd have to go out and get another veteran.

Trent Williams, Ryan Kerrigan and Robert Griffin III have all been knock it out of the ballpark first round picks. I think Perry Riley is a solid player, Leonard Hankerson is playing better than anyone wants to give him credit for, Alfred Morris...enough said. The later round picks aren't blue chip prospects and always take more development than the early round guys.

Also don't think Mike would've touched Janoris Jenkins with a ten foot pole, but that's just me.

[skinfan2k]

I rather have Griffin over Tannehill and others. Griffin has the tools to be a top 3 QB in this league. Tannehill doesn't. There is a vast difference between Top 5 and top 15 Qb that Tannehill might become.

[KCClybun]

Nothing changes. You do the best with the information that you have at the time and NO ONE was putting Tannehill on the same plane as Griffin in college or through the draft.

If Tannehill proves to be Montana-like and Griffin is more Kelly when it comes to Super Bowl success, then (all other things equal) obviously the Redskins wouldn't have made the best choice but they still picked up a damn good player and got plenty of bang for their buck.

Why can't they both develop into really good quarterbacks?

I thought Tannehill was a guy who could win a Super Bowl one day, but it'd take him much longer to develop than it is right now. I think there's a pretty good chance that the class of Luck, Griffin and Tannehill becomes like the class of Eli Manning, Philip Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger. All three are Super Bowl capable quarterbacks, it just might take one longer than the other.

[Hitman21ST]

Why can't they both develop into really good quarterbacks?

I thought Tannehill was a guy who could win a Super Bowl one day, but it'd take him much longer to develop than it is right now. I think there's a pretty good chance that the class of Luck, Griffin and Tannehill becomes like the class of Eli Manning, Philip Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger. All three are Super Bowl capable quarterbacks, it just might take one longer than the other.

As long as we don't have the Philip Rivers of the group.

[darrelgreenie]

Nothing changes. You do the best with the information that you have at the time and NO ONE was putting Tannehill on the same plane as Griffin in college or through the draft.

If Tannehill proves to be Montana-like and Griffin is more Kelly when it comes to Super Bowl success, then (all other things equal) obviously the Redskins wouldn't have made the best choice but they still picked up a damn good player and got plenty of bang for their buck.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'same plane'.

The popular perception was that Tannehill was the 3rd rated QB by 'default' not because of ability.

But that perception didn't match the reality because if rating was merely based on being the 3rd QB by default then he wouldn't have been projected as 1st round/top 15 pick.

His skillset made him a top 15/1st round prospect.

We don't know what either QB will become at draft time, we only know their skillset.

Certainly if both QBs have about the same level of success then the cost paid was unneccesary.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Wonder when people are going to stop crowning QB's after impressive rookie years? When are they going to learn? Look at Cam now, Vince Young, hell Rick Mirer back in the day. Rookie years mean ****. It's what comes after, what the players do when D's around the league finally adjust to their game and find their weaknesses, that counts. I have much more confidence in Griffin being able to grow and adapt than Tannehil