PDA

View Full Version : Ryan Tannehill



Valandui
12-19-2011, 09:55 PM
I know that he could definitely benefit from having a year or two to develop, but why is it that everyone seems to think that twenty something starts isn't enough but Mark Sanchez had fewer and was worth a top five pick? I'd appreciate anything you guys could tell me talent evaluation wise as I'm kind of confused by this.

slosh13
12-19-2011, 10:20 PM
Mark was the best high school player in the country and he sat behind Leinert!!!!

TedSlimmJr
12-19-2011, 10:59 PM
Number of starts has nothing to do with talent, or how you project to the NFL. Dan LeFevour started over 50 games for Central Michigan and went in the 6th round, he's yet to take an NFL snap. Pat White was a 4 year starter, but simply did not project to the QB position in the NFL.

Mark Sanchez completed 66% of his passes and threw 34 TD's to only 10 INT's in a pro style offense in his one season as a starter. He was at his best in the biggest games against the best opponents at USC. Sanchez should've stayed for another year, and Pete Carroll tried to get him to stay. Sanchez wouldn't hear any of it. He was going to be a top 5 pick.

Everyone would've bashed him for how crazy it was to come back when he had already received a high grade after submitting his paperwork to the advisory committee.

A year in a pro style offense is better than 4 years in a gimmick system when it comes to getting you ready for the NFL, but it still boils down to how good NFL people perceive you to be in terms of projecting you to the NFL.

Tannehill's knock won't necessarily be the number of starts under his belt. His knocks are going to be more of the mechanical variety. He still has kinks in his mechanics that need tweaking, and he still has trouble diagnosing certain coverages. He'll still probably go late 1st or early 2nd round, which is about right.

Cam Newton only started 1 year and went #1 overall. Same with Jamarcus Russell. Akili Smith only started 1 year and went in the top 3 overall.

You would like to see a QB have significant starting experience under his belt, because there is no substitute for experience particularly at the QB position. You want a body of work to evaluate. You want to see development and a learning curve. Obviously you need the data (numerous games) in order to guage it.

A QB with only one year of starting experience under his belt at the D-1 level going on to succeed in the NFL is by far the exception, rather than the rule. Especially one that's thrown in the fire from day 1 the way Mark Sanchez was. Sanchez is the first QB I've ever seen have any level of success in the NFL after only one year of starting experience at the D-1 level.

SMadison29
12-19-2011, 11:21 PM
Someone will foolishly over draft Tannehill in the second round, maybe even the late first. It only takes one stupid owner/GM/coach.

houtz
12-19-2011, 11:34 PM
I'd be ****ing ecstatic if Ross could land him in the second. He has all the potential to be something great. Was surprised to see how mobile he was for being such a big dude. If we miss out on Luck/Barkley/RG3 like it looks like we will than I am 100% all in on Tannehill.

SF Dolphin Fan
12-19-2011, 11:42 PM
I'd be ****ing ecstatic if Ross could land him in the second. He has all the potential to be something great. Was surprised to see how mobile he was for being such a big dude. If we miss out on Luck/Barkley/RG3 like it looks like we will than I am 100% all in on Tannehill.This. I know he needs experience, but the kid has everything you look for in the position. Some of the best things he does actually remind me of Aaron Rogers, although there's no question he needs to learn all the little things that win games at the NFL level such as feeling pressure, always knowing where to go with the ball, throwing the ball away at times etc. With the way Matt Moore is playing, Miami can sit Tannehill for a year while he learns the system. He definitely could be great if he's not thrown in right away.

Valandui
12-20-2011, 02:36 AM
Number of starts has nothing to do with talent, or how you project to the NFL. Dan LeFevour started over 50 games for Central Michigan and went in the 6th round, he's yet to take an NFL snap. Pat White was a 4 year starter, but simply did not project to the QB position in the NFL.

Mark Sanchez completed 66% of his passes and threw 34 TD's to only 10 INT's in a pro style offense in his one season as a starter. He was at his best in the biggest games against the best opponents at USC. Sanchez should've stayed for another year, and Pete Carroll tried to get him to stay. Sanchez wouldn't hear any of it. He was going to be a top 5 pick.

Everyone would've bashed him for how crazy it was to come back when he had already received a high grade after submitting his paperwork to the advisory committee.

A year in a pro style offense is better than 4 years in a gimmick system when it comes to getting you ready for the NFL, but it still boils down to how good NFL people perceive you to be in terms of projecting you to the NFL.

Tannehill's knock won't necessarily be the number of starts under his belt. His knocks are going to be more of the mechanical variety. He still has kinks in his mechanics that need tweaking, and he still has trouble diagnosing certain coverages. He'll still probably go late 1st or early 2nd round, which is about right.

Cam Newton only started 1 year and went #1 overall. Same with Jamarcus Russell. Akili Smith only started 1 year and went in the top 3 overall.

You would like to see a QB have significant starting experience under his belt, because there is no substitute for experience particularly at the QB position. You want a body of work to evaluate. You want to see development and a learning curve. Obviously you need the data (numerous games) in order to guage it.

A QB with only one year of starting experience under his belt at the D-1 level going on to succeed in the NFL is by far the exception, rather than the rule. Especially one that's thrown in the fire from day 1 the way Mark Sanchez was. Sanchez is the first QB I've ever seen have any level of success in the NFL after only one year of starting experience at the D-1 level.
I agree that he needs to work on some stuff. I just keep seeing the starts argument pop up and it seems a little ridiculous. However, I still feel that if Andy Dalton can do well as a rookie, I don't see why Tannehill couldn't.

ckparrothead
12-20-2011, 02:49 AM
Ryan Tannehill will go to the Redskins, possibly at pick #9 overall.

Valandui
12-20-2011, 04:07 AM
Ryan Tannehill will go to the Redskins, possibly at pick #9 overall.
That would definitely fit Shanahan's prototype. Is that your theory on what will happen or have you heard something?