| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigschmadt00
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 10558
Location: Seeing what condition my condition is in
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Mikek163 wrote: | | bigschmadt00 wrote: | View Tannehill as a luxury pick. Due to our roster at where it's at currently, we have the luxury to take a chance on potential. We also have the luxury to sort of double-down at the QB position. With two guys with lots of upside you've got twice as much of a chance on one of them reaching that potential.
Factor in everything else I've said about the timing in relation to our core group of players, the fact that we will most likely not be nearly in this position in next years draft to select a top prospect, and the fact that with oru roster there's a good chance Cassel will look pretty decent, thus prolonging the mediocrity.
This most likely our best shot for the next 2-3 years to get a top QB prospect, what is there to lose? What is there to gain? |
Bigs you post so much info about every topic we have going on. I don't mean to change this subject so maybe PM me but what do YOU want us to do in this years draft. Lay It out for me brah, or make a mock or SOMETHING! It seems like there is always something wrong with someone or you're not happy.
A happy Bigs is a happy forum. |
I'm working on a mock, but honestly it's very difficult. I don't wanna do something with like 4 options in the 1st, which obviously changes the complection of everything after that, but I also can legitimately see us going for like 6-7 different players in the 1st, and that's without trading back, which IMO is option #1.
I apologize for my floundering on things, or at least the perception. I realize I have an issue communicating my point, and that's actually part of the reason I originally started posting on here, to train myself to communicate my points better and make a more coherent argument.
The reason it may be hard to pin me down to anyone stance is because there are very few issues I take a hard line on, and can't at least see one to two other options and recognize that it too has it's merits.
I also feel a talent of mine is being able to see the big picture of things. So often people get wrapped around the axle about one specific issue, where as I typically like to try and take into account all factors. The fact that as a total outsider, I don't have all the information, which leads to even more uncertainty of my positions.
I would have put this in a PM, but it's not the first time somethign like this has been mentioned, and I'd like to kind of let everyone understand my perspective. I realize that me continuing to just come back again and again to things may seem like I'm just trying to prove myself right, or am taking anything personal, but I can assure you I am not. I really enjoy the debate, and I really enjoy coming to understand things better through others perceptions/knowledge.
Anyways, long story short, I'm working on my mock, but it's hard. Now that you've said something though, I'm thiking I might do one of what I think is realistic from Pioli's perspective, and then one that is what I'd do. I've been trying to merge them together, and is part of what's taking so long.
_________________
^ryknowssd on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Desmond
Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 10602
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OILCHIEFS wrote: | | bigschmadt00 wrote: | | This most likely our best shot for the next 2-3 years to get a top QB prospect, what is there to lose? What is there to gain? |
What do you think about next year's draft class? There could be 2-3 guys who are better then Tannehill. |
I don't like that this is our best shot at a Top QB prospect. There is always next year. Take a look at these top-three guys:
Matt Barkley | Southern California
Tyler Wilson | Arkansas
Landry Jones | Oklahoma
And then the potential underclassmen:
Tyler Bray | Tennessee
Aaron Murray | Georgia
If we have a very solid draft this year, landing an NT that shows promise, drafting depth everywhere... there's still the possibility we package some picks and trade up in the 2013 Draft. And depending on how good our 2012 Draft is, if we get some great depth, I don't see why not trading up to get our guy.
_________________
[quote="KingofSTATS"]Healthy Gates >>>> Anyone to play the TE/WR position, ever.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigschmadt00
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 10558
Location: Seeing what condition my condition is in
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Desmond wrote: | | OILCHIEFS wrote: | | bigschmadt00 wrote: | | This most likely our best shot for the next 2-3 years to get a top QB prospect, what is there to lose? What is there to gain? |
What do you think about next year's draft class? There could be 2-3 guys who are better then Tannehill. |
I don't like that this is our best shot at a Top QB prospect. There is always next year. Take a look at these top-three guys:
Matt Barkley | Southern California
Tyler Wilson | Arkansas
Landry Jones | Oklahoma
And then the potential underclassmen:
Tyler Bray | Tennessee
Aaron Murray | Georgia
If we have a very solid draft this year, landing an NT that shows promise, drafting depth everywhere... there's still the possibility we package some picks and trade up in the 2013 Draft. And depending on how good our 2012 Draft is, if we get some great depth, I don't see why not trading up to get our guy. |
First off, Landry Jones is not a viable option.
Second off, the chances of both Bray and Murray coming our are extremely low IMO. History says two top underclassmen won't come out the same year with several seniors to also compete with. Maybe they're different, but unlikely.
So that once again would leave 3 guys perceived as franchise type QB's. What are the odds that any of them are available past say 15 next year?
And the idea of trading up, well, I seriously doubt we do it into the top 10, so we'd only be trading up for the #3 guy, are they going to be significantly better then Tannehill is?
Also, don't forget that if Cassel is our starter in 2012, he most likely will be for 2013 as well. He'd have to be down right miserable to not look at least decent and get us to around 10 wins with our current roster.
Maybe you don't think we will make a move this year, but that's not the same thing as not wanting us to. Waiting till next year will almost certainly result in another year or more of Cassel after that. But if we do draft a guy high this year, then Cassel's ticket is punched, it's just a matter of time before he gets aboard.
_________________
^ryknowssd on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
onejayhawk
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 5052
Location: Waco, Tx
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Desmond wrote: | | OILCHIEFS wrote: | | bigschmadt00 wrote: | | This most likely our best shot for the next 2-3 years to get a top QB prospect, what is there to lose? What is there to gain? |
What do you think about next year's draft class? There could be 2-3 guys who are better then Tannehill. |
I don't like that this is our best shot at a Top QB prospect. There is always next year. Take a look at these top-three guys:
Matt Barkley | Southern California
Tyler Wilson | Arkansas
Landry Jones | Oklahoma
And then the potential underclassmen:
Tyler Bray | Tennessee
Aaron Murray | Georgia
If we have a very solid draft this year, landing an NT that shows promise, drafting depth everywhere... there's still the possibility we package some picks and trade up in the 2013 Draft. And depending on how good our 2012 Draft is, if we get some great depth, I don't see why not trading up to get our guy. |
I would take Tannehill over Landry Jones. Matt Barkley is closer, but I still prefer RT. I have some concerns about Barkley's arm. The interesting one is Tyler Wilson.
J
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArrowheadRage58
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 3491
Location: Hate for the Donkeys is at a mile high
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Desmond wrote: | | OILCHIEFS wrote: | | bigschmadt00 wrote: | | This most likely our best shot for the next 2-3 years to get a top QB prospect, what is there to lose? What is there to gain? |
What do you think about next year's draft class? There could be 2-3 guys who are better then Tannehill. |
I don't like that this is our best shot at a Top QB prospect. There is always next year. Take a look at these top-three guys:
Matt Barkley | Southern California
Tyler Wilson | Arkansas
Landry Jones | Oklahoma
And then the potential underclassmen:
Tyler Bray | Tennessee
Aaron Murray | Georgia
If we have a very solid draft this year, landing an NT that shows promise, drafting depth everywhere... there's still the possibility we package some picks and trade up in the 2013 Draft. And depending on how good our 2012 Draft is, if we get some great depth, I don't see why not trading up to get our guy. |
I'm not necessarily saying we need to get a QB in next years draft, but if it is what needs to be done, the comment about only trading up IF we get some great depth this year seems to be saying "hold off on doing anything out of the ordinary to get a QB until the rest of our roster is "perfect" or atleast a solid 2 deep".
That just seems like flawed logic to me...I've never seen a team with perfect depth and a franchise QB. KC finally has some good depth, it's only gonna get better after this draft. if there is a QB out there to be had, we need to go get him, regardless of what our depth situation is from here on out. Unless of course you're of the belief that a franchise QB on this team would not put us in the realm of SB contention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Desmond
Joined: 05 Oct 2008
Posts: 10602
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bigschmadt00 wrote: | | First off, Landry Jones is not a viable option. |
I would argue he's just as viable as Tannehill. Why do you not think Jones is viable? Is it for the reasons previously discussed, that people see him as a screen-machine and that he gets taken out in goal-line situations?
| bigschmadt00 wrote: | | Second off, the chances of both Bray and Murray coming our are extremely low IMO. History says two top underclassmen won't come out the same year with several seniors to also compete with. Maybe they're different, but unlikely. |
I agree the chances are low, I was just tossing those names out there.
| bigschmadt00 wrote: | | So that once again would leave 3 guys perceived as franchise type QB's. What are the odds that any of them are available past say 15 next year? |
I couldn't tell you the odds of a guy like that slipping, but great QBs are found throughout the draft. We shouldn't let the market for QBs at the top of the draft impact how we approach the draft too much.
| bigschmadt00 wrote: | | And the idea of trading up, well, I seriously doubt we do it into the top 10, so we'd only be trading up for the #3 guy, are they going to be significantly better then Tannehill is? |
I'm not a homer for any of them like you're a homer for Texas A&M, so I'll let you know closer to April of 2013. 
_________________
[quote="KingofSTATS"]Healthy Gates >>>> Anyone to play the TE/WR position, ever.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigschmadt00
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 10558
Location: Seeing what condition my condition is in
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Desmond wrote: | | bigschmadt00 wrote: | | First off, Landry Jones is not a viable option. |
I would argue he's just as viable as Tannehill. Why do you not think Jones is viable? Is it for the reasons previously discussed, that people see him as a screen-machine and that he gets taken out in goal-line situations? |
I was kind of back and forth a little on Jones before 2011, but after seeing him a few times and focusing in on him, and seeing the drop in his play when Broyles went down, I really felt like he's a limited QB. He's got terrible pocket pressence is the main issue. He panics quite often.
Tangibly, he's good, but I'd not put his arm talent (not just strength but ability to make all the throws) and athleticism anywhere near Tannehill's. And various scouting reports will talk about a long delivery that needs work, a propensity to overthrow WR's, and very inconsistent mechanics without a perfectly clean pocket.
I personally see him as more of a career back-up with some starter potential, which means 3rd round pick.
| Desmond wrote: | | bigschmadt00 wrote: | | So that once again would leave 3 guys perceived as franchise type QB's. What are the odds that any of them are available past say 15 next year? |
I couldn't tell you the odds of a guy like that slipping, but great QBs are found throughout the draft. We shouldn't let the market for QBs at the top of the draft impact how we approach the draft too much. |
Those great QB's that are found throughout the draft are typically the biggest projects. And a large majority of the best QB's in the league the past 5 years or so have been 1st round picks. It's becoming less hard to properly evaluate the position IMO, and as such guys with lots of potential simply won't be had past the 1st very often.
I'm not saying it will never happen, but the odds are severly against it happening.
| Desmond wrote: | | bigschmadt00 wrote: | | And the idea of trading up, well, I seriously doubt we do it into the top 10, so we'd only be trading up for the #3 guy, are they going to be significantly better then Tannehill is? |
I'm not a homer for any of them like you're a homer for Texas A&M, so I'll let you know closer to April of 2013. |
While I realize you are somewhat joking, just know I'm not some unabashed A&M homer. I've talked up pretty much exactly 4 players of ours the past 2 years, Von Miller, Tannehill, Fuller, and Gray. And by talking up, for guys like Fuller and Gray I've rated them as mid to later round guys with upside.
I feel like I've been very honest in my assessment of Tannehill. I've been critical of his small stretches of poor play where he just seems to forget what he's doing for a series or two (we're talking literally like 5 series in his career), and I've been very honest about my concern for his confidence and ability to bounce back from adversity and simply handle the pressure from the outside. However, I recognize that his potential is immense. I absolutely believe he has Aaron Rodgers type of potential, but fully recognize that the chances of him reaching that is very, very small, but at this point with all things considered with our team, we need to be willing to take more of a risk.
Also, something I've been wanting to bring up, people talk about how Tannehill wouldn't contribute immediately, which is a fault for a 1st round pick. Well, I think he could easily come in and play some WR for us, as well as a Tebow type of goal line zone read package. While not the size of Tebow, he's got great vision and patience for running the zone read option stuff, and he could come in as a slot WR for 4-5 plays per game.
_________________
^ryknowssd on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
valkrei
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 3972
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigschmadt00
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 10558
Location: Seeing what condition my condition is in
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
http://www.walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2012rtannehill.php
| Quote: | Strengths:
Good arm strength
Quick release
Accurate thrower
Good mechanics
Plus field vision
Extremely mobile with scrambling ability
Can pick up critical yards with his feet
Accuracy potential throwing downfield
Good fit for NFL offenses
Intelligent
Hard worker
Leader
Passionate for the game
Good teammate without an ego
Opens up mismatches for teammates with dual-threat nature
Quality wide receiver
Versatile athlete; could stay on the field in a wildcat at QB or WR
High-character individual
Weaknesses:
Needs to improve his anticipation
Ball security; interceptions and fumbles
Has small hands
Only 19 collegiate starts, 20 games at quarterback
Player Comparison: Rich Gannon. In watching Tannehill during the 2011 season, I was reminded of Gannon when he was playing well. In his peak years with the Oakland Raiders, Gannon was a force who could rip a defense through the air but also pick up some critical third downs with his feet. Tannehill has a skill set and style like Gannon. If Tannehill lands in the right spot, and is developed well, he could turn into a quarterback who is comparable to the 2002 NFL MVP. |
I'm gonna sue this guy for plagarism.  Aside from the fumble "Weakness," and using Gannon as a comparison instead of Rodgers, I couldn't have said it better myself, at least not again.
_________________
^ryknowssd on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
onejayhawk
Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 5052
Location: Waco, Tx
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bigschmadt00 wrote: | http://www.walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2012rtannehill.php
| Quote: | Strengths:
Good arm strength
Quick release
Accurate thrower
Good mechanics
Plus field vision
Extremely mobile with scrambling ability
Can pick up critical yards with his feet
Accuracy potential throwing downfield
Good fit for NFL offenses
Intelligent
Hard worker
Leader
Passionate for the game
Good teammate without an ego
Opens up mismatches for teammates with dual-threat nature
Quality wide receiver
Versatile athlete; could stay on the field in a wildcat at QB or WR
High-character individual
Weaknesses:
Needs to improve his anticipation
Ball security; interceptions and fumbles
Has small hands
Only 19 collegiate starts, 20 games at quarterback
Player Comparison: Rich Gannon. In watching Tannehill during the 2011 season, I was reminded of Gannon when he was playing well. In his peak years with the Oakland Raiders, Gannon was a force who could rip a defense through the air but also pick up some critical third downs with his feet. Tannehill has a skill set and style like Gannon. If Tannehill lands in the right spot, and is developed well, he could turn into a quarterback who is comparable to the 2002 NFL MVP. |
I'm gonna sue this guy for plagarism. Aside from the fumble "Weakness," and using Gannon as a comparison instead of Rodgers, I couldn't have said it better myself, at least not again. |
Gannon is a good comparison in some ways, but not the mental game. RT has a better arm than Gannon, but a lot of players have.
J
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigschmadt00
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 10558
Location: Seeing what condition my condition is in
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/article-2/Chiefs-Draft-Wide-Open-at-No-11/f356cef6-d930-4562-88b8-92f390008dfa
| Quote: | Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill is the latest prospect to generate chatter as potential Chiefs first-round pick.
And why not?
The Chiefs walked away impressed with Tannehill after spending one-on-one time with him at the NFL Scouting Combine in February. Scouts attended Tannehill’s Pro Day last week, where he completed 65-of-68 passes.
This week, the team will put Tannehill through a private workout.
What does it all mean?
Some will suggest that the Chiefs are starved for a home-grown franchise quarterback. That GM Scott Pioli wants to get into the mode of drafting a quarterback each year. That the team’s interest in Peyton Manning showed intent on exploring new options at quarterback.
Others will suggest that the Chiefs’ recent interest in Tannehill is all smoke and mirrors. A bargaining chip in case Tannehill is still on the board at No. 11.
But, in reality, Kansas City’s interest in Tannehill isn’t about extreme infatuations or a plot to drive trade activity.
With Tannehill, the Chiefs are covering all of their bases. It’s that simple.
For the first time since Kansas City made sweeping changes to its football operations more than three years ago, the team doesn’t have to draft for need in the first round. Plenty of needs remain across the roster, but the starting 22 in vastly improved.
When it comes to choosing a player with the 11th overall pick, the Chiefs are position flexible. That’s why Tannehill could make a lot of sense. |
I wonder how much Looney gets "coached" on his articles? I'm not insinuating anything at all, but I could definitely see him being instructed on some spin from time to time.
_________________
^ryknowssd on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nicfre2011
Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 5303
Location: SC
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The one thing that jumped out at me was the comment about "drafting a quarterback every year". To me this is absolutely the wrong mentality...and I am not sure if this is legitimate or not, but to me it makes no sense. I can understand why the Patriots may grab a quarterback here and there when one slides and presents excellent value. But that is possible because they more often than not have multiple additional picks.
Instead of the "throw at the wall and see what sticks", maybe we should get a true franchise quarterback. When you dedicate a draft pick and subsequent roster spot to a quarterback continually you are going to suffer because you aren't going to find a Tom Brady. You are more than likely going to find a #3 or at best a #2 that holds a roster spot for a couple of years.
I will get off of my soapbox....We have a Stanzi, we don't need to draft another one for the sake of acquiring quarterbacks. Those middle rounds picks are becoming more and more important in this day and age IMO.
Tannehill, ok I get...if he is a franchise quarterback like he is projected...and a team feels he can be their franchise quarterback, then draft him. But IMO, to go out and draft a Kirk Cousins or even an Brock Osweiler while we have a developmental quarterback in Stanzi, that doesn't make sense.
Now, if we are giving up on Stanzi already ok, then Pioli needs to admit that was a busted pick....but I sure wouldn't give up on him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigschmadt00
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 10558
Location: Seeing what condition my condition is in
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Nic, I read that comment as a pre-emptive response to some one who will respond to Looney about the theory of Pioli taking a QB every year. I don't think he was saying that's our plan, but rather speaking to that idea.
This general idea is something I've heard a lot about over the years on this site, but has died down recently as he's only drafted one in 3 years now. I once again think that had more to do with Belichick, and/or the luxury at the position the Pats had as you mentioned.
_________________
^ryknowssd on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nicfre2011
Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 5303
Location: SC
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bigschmadt00 wrote: | Nic, I read that comment as a pre-emptive response to some one who will respond to Looney about the theory of Pioli taking a QB every year. I don't think he was saying that's our plan, but rather speaking to that idea.
This general idea is something I've heard a lot about over the years on this site, but has died down recently as he's only drafted one in 3 years now. I once again think that had more to do with Belichick, and/or the luxury at the position the Pats had as you mentioned. |
Yeah, that's what I figured. Reading that though really got me spun up about the whole quarterback issue we have and the idea of throwing against the wall. If we had the luxury of have lots of premium picks every year like the Patriots, ok, spend one of a quarterback and see if you can develop him. But that will eventually catch up with you if you do it constantly. And yeah, I think it is overblown....Mallett is really the only one in memory....I guess he also tried to find a diamond in the rough with Kevin O'Connell IIRC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DT58_lives_on
Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 4939
Location: St. Cloud, MN
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | I can understand why the Patriots may grab a quarterback here and there when one slides and presents excellent value. But that is possible because they more often than not have multiple additional picks.
|
Exactly, they take their guys at value because they have a franchise guy, but are willing to take time to develop people behind them. This is the first time in memory where I can remember KC having three QB's who either can be a decent QB, or have potential to be. Palko was an utter joke even Thiggy was more of a gimmick QB, though I'd take him over Palko, we probably would have made the playoffs.
We either need to make a move for someone who we think will pan out like Tannehill, or...hope one of our guys develops like a Brady...right now...I'm not sure what is more or less realistic.
_________________
Props to Loto...the guy does great work |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
