PDA

View Full Version : If we trade up in Round 1 for Tannehill, Im done!



dagger151
03-19-2012, 11:15 AM
Given the track record for this joke of a leadership team, dont be surprised if we have to trade up with MIN to get Tannehill. I realize Sherman knows better than anyone else if he is the real deal but Tannehill is raw and i can see him starting this year over Moore. Is he really a #3 pick? Definitely not!

We need upgrades at WR, We need a LB, a pass rusher, a Safety, a guard. if we blow this by giving up picks to trade up, i will be speechless. Have to think many of you are with me on this.

I hate sounding like a whiner, or a Debbie Downer, but can we really be optimistic when were bringing Alex Smith in and David Garrard too?

I say we trade down (unless Blackmon somehow makes it to us at #8) and grab some additional picks.

We should have grabbed Winston if we knew we werent going to get Flynn.

Please Ireland, no to Tannehill in Rd 1.

---------- Post added at 07:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 AM ----------

sorry, meant CANT start over Moore this year!

andyahs
03-19-2012, 11:16 AM
The 'I'm done' phrase is the most overused phrase on Finheaven.

Kdawg954
03-19-2012, 11:17 AM
So we trade up for a guy they would obviously view as a franchise QB and you would be done?

Sure, lets go Reilly Reiff and fill those holes up, lets trade down and grab 2 guys while failing to neglect the most important position on the field.

If Miami comes out of this draft with Ryan Tannehill, that would be a breath of fresh air . . . . trust me.

LikeUntoGod
03-19-2012, 11:17 AM
Cleveland will take him so we we still have you :)

rev kev
03-19-2012, 11:18 AM
Given the track record for this joke of a leadership team, dont be surprised if we have to trade up with MIN to get Tannehill. I realize Sherman knows better than anyone else if he is the real deal but Tannehill is raw and i can see him starting this year over Moore. Is he really a #3 pick? Definitely not!

We need upgrades at WR, We need a LB, a pass rusher, a Safety, a guard. if we blow this by giving up picks to trade up, i will be speechless. Have to think many of you are with me on this.

I hate sounding like a whiner, or a Debbie Downer, but can we really be optimistic when were bringing Alex Smith in and David Garrard too?

I say we trade down (unless Blackmon somehow makes it to us at #8) and grab some additional picks.

We should have grabbed Winston if we knew we werent going to get Flynn.

Please Ireland, no to Tannehill in Rd 1.

---------- Post added at 07:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 AM ----------

sorry, meant CANT start over Moore this year!

If we trade up for Tannehill I will BLOW A GASKET!!!! If we draft Tannehill at #8 I will be real Skeptical - I expect a move down for a later first or and xtra second to get a WR with the first and Weeden with the 2nd - leaving us another second and two thirds

BARF
03-19-2012, 11:19 AM
that would be a move out of desperation

Tunaphish429
03-19-2012, 11:21 AM
I dont think we trade up for him..I cant see the Browns taking him at that spot.. I think he is there when Miami is picking but do we take him?

miamiron
03-19-2012, 11:30 AM
So we trade up for a guy they would obviously view as a franchise QB and you would be done?

Miami comes out of this draft with Ryan Tannehill, that would be a breath of fresh air . . . . trust me.

More like an act of desperation/last resort

BahamaFinFan78
03-19-2012, 11:30 AM
If he's there, take him; if not, he's not worth trading up for.

dagger151
03-19-2012, 11:31 AM
Id rather gamble on Weeden later in Rd 2 or someone else later in the draft. Im all for a QB in Rd 1 if its a Rd1 guy. Tannehill is not worth a top 10 pick.

Moore will now have a full offseason as the starter. He did well for us last year. Is it Superbowl quality? NO! but with the Patriots now getting even better, do we have a realistic chance of Superbowl anyway?

WR usually take a couple years to blossom. By then, hopefully we have stocked our team through the draft and are ready to compete. Next year we will be lucky to be 8-8. I guess we need to accept it and deal that we are rebuilding AGAIN!!

Eff Riley Rieff, id rather have David DeCastro by trading back a few spots. Murtha played well last year for us when he was healthy, lets blow some holes open for our trade up last year, Daniel Thomas.

Im not sure sure if Trent Richardson is there at 8 we dont take him. Reggie Bush is gone after next year. I dunno anymore...

LikeUntoGod
03-19-2012, 11:34 AM
Cleveland was trying to spend their 2 1st rounders plus more to move into the 2nd slot in the draft. I can easily see them taking Tannehill.

Kdawg954
03-19-2012, 11:34 AM
The logic in this thread is amusing. So you would take him at 8 (a position where you would take a franchise QB) but you wouldn't trade up for him to ensure you get your franchise QB?

Is that pick that we lose really worth the chance of missing out on your #1 target (which it is all speculation, I don't know if he is or isn't but I'm just saying).

This same philosophy cost us Jake Locker and Christian Ponder last year (reports say we would have drafted one of those 2 had they slipped to 15).

Miami has YET to learn how to ensure getting their franchise guy, and we have yet to learn to understand what it takes to get one (outside of the brilliant unrealistic S4L philosophy).


I don't see how bringing in this good sized athletic kid with a big arm won't get fans excited.

PJack
03-19-2012, 11:39 AM
I think you take a guy in the top 10 he should start relatively early...QB's included. I don't think Tannehill is anywhere near ready to start in the NFL so I think he's a reach at 8 never mind trading up. If we trade up I view that as total act desperation from a team that swung and missed on their first two choices. I would much rather stick with Moore and take a crack at the QB's coming out next year. And for the love of god, please please don't drag Garrard off the garbage pile.

Kdawg954
03-19-2012, 11:46 AM
I think you take a guy in the top 10 he should start relatively early...QB's included. I don't think Tannehill is anywhere near ready to start in the NFL so I think he's a reach at 8 never mind trading up. If we trade up I view that as total act desperation from a team that swung and missed on their first two choices. I would much rather stick with Moore and take a crack at the QB's coming out next year. And for the love of god, please please don't drag Garrard off the garbage pile.

I disagree, Jake Locker was taken 8th and people knew he would need a year or 2 before he was ready and they spent big money on Hasselback to come in. Now people see a few glimpses of him in the regular season and they want him on the team.

Tannehill does need a good year before he is ready, but the fact that Mike Sherman is here could elevate that time curve. I don't necessarily view it as an act of desperation if they traded up. We ALL know Manning was their first choice, he was the first choice by every team in the league w/o a franchise QB and with the cap space to sign him. I understand that, and there shouldn't be any shame in missing on him because you had about a 8% chance of landing him anyways. I said from the beginning that Flynn was a good guy to have because of his familiarity with Philbin but he didn't necessarily have the tools to become an elite QB in this league, just a solid starter/Chad Pennington type. I wasn't sure if Philbin was ready to stake his name on a guy who in a sense was a bit "limited" but could run his offense. I'm assuming we wanted him at a slightly higher level than Matt Moore which would have taken some pressure off us on QB and we could of still snatched our guy we coveted all along.

All theories, but so is the idea that we swung and missed on Flynn, I personally don't think we were as interested as people think we were.

cuban_refugee
03-19-2012, 11:49 AM
Given the track record for this joke of a leadership team, dont be surprised if we have to trade up with MIN to get Tannehill. I realize Sherman knows better than anyone else if he is the real deal but Tannehill is raw and i can see him starting this year over Moore. Is he really a #3 pick? Definitely not!

We need upgrades at WR, We need a LB, a pass rusher, a Safety, a guard. if we blow this by giving up picks to trade up, i will be speechless. Have to think many of you are with me on this.

I hate sounding like a whiner, or a Debbie Downer, but can we really be optimistic when were bringing Alex Smith in and David Garrard too?

I say we trade down (unless Blackmon somehow makes it to us at #8) and grab some additional picks.

We should have grabbed Winston if we knew we werent going to get Flynn.

Please Ireland, no to Tannehill in Rd 1

---------- Post added at 07:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 AM ----------

sorry, meant CANT start over Moore this year!

If anything we'll trade down. Parcells and Ireland generally don't put great value for the QB position in Rd 1. They stay tight to their ways....if the value for the player is there at their pick then they do it. They won't reach.

Hayden Fox
03-19-2012, 12:05 PM
I am done if Ross demands Tebow.

Yonk1216
03-19-2012, 12:15 PM
Cleveland was trying to spend their 2 1st rounders plus more to move into the 2nd slot in the draft. I can easily see them taking Tannehill.

I'm not sure I see the logic of trying to move up to 2 to get RG3 but then being OK with Tannehill at 4..... if they are that high in Tannehill, why would they not just take him at 4 and save that other pick? Using that logic I would think that they are not that high on him and taking him at 4 is a reach.

PJack
03-19-2012, 12:17 PM
I disagree, Jake Locker was taken 8th and people knew he would need a year or 2 before he was ready and they spent big money on Hasselback to come in. Now people see a few glimpses of him in the regular season and they want him on the team.

Tannehill does need a good year before he is ready, but the fact that Mike Sherman is here could elevate that time curve. I don't necessarily view it as an act of desperation if they traded up. We ALL know Manning was their first choice, he was the first choice by every team in the league w/o a franchise QB and with the cap space to sign him. I understand that, and there shouldn't be any shame in missing on him because you had about a 8% chance of landing him anyways. I said from the beginning that Flynn was a good guy to have because of his familiarity with Philbin but he didn't necessarily have the tools to become an elite QB in this league, just a solid starter/Chad Pennington type. I wasn't sure if Philbin was ready to stake his name on a guy who in a sense was a bit "limited" but could run his offense. I'm assuming we wanted him at a slightly higher level than Matt Moore which would have taken some pressure off us on QB and we could of still snatched our guy we coveted all along.

All theories, but so is the idea that we swung and missed on Flynn, I personally don't think we were as interested as people think we were.

I agree with you and don't even have a problem with not getting Manning or Flynn. Maybe could have chosen my word more carefully on swinging and missing, but at the end of the day we had interest in both and got neither. I frankly was not in love with either for different reasons as I wanted a long term franchise caliber QB. Manning fails the first part of that equation and Flynn (though yet to be seen) I didn't think filled the second.

I understand what you are saying about Locker, but in my view he was overdrafted by the Titans last year so I would pretty much feel the same about Tannehill if we take him at 8 (or earlier). I personally just don't see him in same light as Luck, RG3, or at least 3 guys coming out next year. Since we are not going to win anything this year no matter what we do in the draft, my feeling is to roll with what we have, and target a way to get picks so we can trade into the top 3-5 next year (assuming we don't do that on our own).

I'm as tired as anyone not having a franchise QB and having Moore as our only current option. However, this is where we are and our attempts at other guys didn't work out this year. Maybe Smith falls in our lap but only if PM chooses the 49'ers.....and again my personal preference would be to go with what we have as IMO Smith is not a major upgrade over Moore and I don't want a long term committment to him.

Imperium
03-19-2012, 12:21 PM
If they're that high on Tannehill, then by all means do what it takes to get the guy. I dont know, maybe they're really high on someone else, someone they know they could land the 2nd/3rd round?

fishbanger
03-19-2012, 12:27 PM
Moore wont step on the field unless he is extended to a 3 year contract at 26M. See what Flynn got. Weede will be a first round pick. Just watch the teams that need a QB in the first round. The Jets extension of Sanchez is a smokescreen. Weeden will not get past the Jets pick. Thats our competition there.

DolfanISS
03-19-2012, 12:29 PM
The 'I'm done' phrase is the most overused phrase on Finheaven.

Nah mediocre and smokescreen will never be beaten.

twohype
03-19-2012, 12:30 PM
So we trade up for a guy they would obviously view as a franchise QB and you would be done?

Sure, lets go Reilly Reiff and fill those holes up, lets trade down and grab 2 guys while failing to neglect the most important position on the field.


If Miami comes out of this draft with Ryan Tannehill, that would be a breath of fresh air . . . . trust me.


Yep :-)

RHoffman
03-19-2012, 12:31 PM
If we are going to draft a project quarterback. I'd much rather wait to the second or third round and go after Weeden or Foles, maybe Osweiler.

gottahavefootba
03-19-2012, 12:35 PM
I could see Tannehill being there at 8 and the fins passing on him.. They just do not put very much value on QB's at all.. I really don't get it.