Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Am I the only one who would not take Tannehill at #8 ?

  1. -11
    NamathDrunkLove's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    209
    vCash:
    1107
    Loc:
    Chattanooga, Tennessee, U
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by ssnjamerson View Post
    I have seen alot of mocks with us taking Tannehill with #8 and Ive heard alot of so called experts saying Tennehill will be a top 10 pick. I bet on alot of football games so I watch a ton of games. I am no expert but I have not been impressed with Tannehill at all. He has good size and athletic ability but he didnt show much in college. He didnt win alot of games and didnt put up huge stats. I would much rather have Manning,Flynn, or roll with Moore. Tannahill reminds me alot of Matt Moore talent wise. When you use the #8 you should be upgrading not making a lateral move. If we took him in late late 1st with a trade back or the 2nd I could live with that but not with a top #20 pick. We have too many needs to take a Qb that will not help us improve
    He has quite a bit more potential than Matt Moore. He has a stronger arm and is more mobile for starters. He didn't put up huge numbers in college but he also only has two years experience at the position. The numbers he did put up were impressive for someone so new to the position though. I would rather spend an early pick on Tannehill than spend a mid to late round pick on someone like Osweiler. To me, Osweiler has too many things that he has to improve in his game. He has awkward mechanics and throwing motion, makes very poor decisions, and I was not over impressed from what I have seen with his arm strength or accuracy. I have seen others on this board go nuts over Osweiler because he is an "athlete" (he played basketball). I don't care if he has Michael Vick athleticism. If he can't throw the ball and make good decisions he either needs to find another position or another sport.

    I should make it clear that I would only want Tannehill early if we were to get Manning on board. I realize that Tannehill needs a few years to develop and hopefully Manning is the one doing the tutoring. I would also like to trade down, but if we are stuck at 8 and end up with Manning I wouldn't be upset picking Tannehill.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -12
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    169
    vCash:
    2066
    Thanks / No Thanks
    id rather trade down and try to draft him then....but at #8 ...I say NO WAY to much of a reach for someone raw in the position.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -13
    finfan54's Avatar
    Finheaven Hall of Fame

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2002
    Posts:
    24,956
    vCash:
    19501
    Thanks / No Thanks
    who the hell was texas a&m before T-Hill? The fact the kid did beat teams or at least compete from being WR shows he has the tools and prototype. Just needs more refining. But the kid has character and fast learner. If Sherman and others know he can make based on these factors, and being a high premium QB, you move up the draft. Its that simple. The more teams like what you got, the more your stock goes up. Supply and demand.

    That said, I think teams are using T-hill to desuade teams from thinking they are locked into RG3 and such.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -14
    Danny's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2003
    Posts:
    10,626
    vCash:
    10857
    Loc:
    Kissimmee,FL
    Thanks / No Thanks
    We'll have to trust the FO/coaches on this one. He did play for Sherman so we have the inside scoop.....we also have the scoop on Flynn...as far as Manning, nobody knows what he'll be able to do or when(from a health stanpoint)and that's why Manning would not be my first option.....I will of course root for him if we get him but I think is a mistake.

    Ozzy rules!!
    Quote Quote  

  5. -15
    NewCoachPlease's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2004
    Posts:
    362
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Delaware
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I think drafting tanenhill at eight to sit behind moore at least to
    start the year is the most likely way this plays out
    It is odd that I got this name in 2004 and it is still relevant to this day. Prove me wrong TS!
    Quote Quote  

  6. -16
    Njphinsfan's Avatar
    Seasoned Veteran

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2011
    Posts:
    626
    vCash:
    3842
    Loc:
    Hewitt, NJ
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I agree, it would be a stretch at #8, but from the reports out there, he is not going to be on the board much later than that. If we pass on him at #8, a lot of people think Seattle will take him at #12. If we get Manning, then I think we need to take him at #8. That is the downfall of picking up Manning, we won't be able to fill a hole with our first pick, but it needs to be done. If we get Flynn, I don't think we need to reach for him at #8. If we don't get either, I would rather have Weeden to compete with Moore now. We don't know too much about our coaching staff yet, but the fact that they have the inside track on both Tannehill and Flynn makes me feel more comfortable that we will at least "get it right" at the QB position this year.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -17
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2010
    Posts:
    243
    vCash:
    1264
    Thanks / No Thanks
    If the FO thinks Tanenhill is a starting QB in the NFL down the road, than take him at 8. Forget about value pick and all the other stuff. If he's your guy, pick him and move on.

    Let the arm chair QB's complain.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -18
    2413fanphins's Avatar
    Super Donator

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    6,604
    vCash:
    2353
    Loc:
    Central iowa
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Tannehill 17
    It's really pretty simple. If we draft peyton, than we have to draft tannehill or nobody at qb. Peyton will play probably 2-4 more years. tannehill could sit behind peyton no problem. if we get flynn, we dont need to draft qb realistically, he will be asking for a 4-5 year contract... I guess you could make an argument to draft tannehill to sit behind flynn as well, but I don't think I'd use a first rounder on a guy to pontentially sit for 5 years.
    signing either guy, (manning or flynn), takes bradon weeden completely out of the equation IMO... weedens age doesn't really allow for him to sit, let alone sit for 4 years or so.

    If we dont' get manning or flynn, you either take tannehill at 8 and be done with it... that was your qb move for the year, OR
    you take BPA at 8 whether its kuechly, coples, trich... whoever... and kneel and pray until hopefully weeden lands in your lap at 42 or wherever we are, and thats your qb move for the year.

    I like option A myself... I have no idea why anybody would argue against it. If peyton plays its because he's healthy.. not because he's 80% and wants to get paid. If tannehill is your guy, than take him at 8, even if it means sitting. You do lose out on kuechly, coples, etc etc, but you hopefully have qb handled until 2023ish.....

    acquiring peyton if tannehill is not your guy... to me in this scenario, we trade down. we hope richardson falls, and somebody is in love with him and we stockpile picks... either we get lucky and tannehill falls and we still get him or we start filling other areas of need in a hury with the stockpile of picks....
    Quote Quote  

  9. -19
    allsilverdreams's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,526
    vCash:
    2967
    Thanks / No Thanks
    i have not seen one mock with us getting a qb at # 8.all de or ol
    Quote Quote  

  10. -20
    LANGER72's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    9,153
    vCash:
    28732
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I think Tannehill is no more talented that Cousins, or Foles and he is less ready to play than Weeden, and might have less upside than Osweiler.
    IMHO, he is a reach at #8.
    Luck and RGIII are the only first round talent QB's in this years draft. Both of those guys are legit.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-04-2013, 04:36 PM
  2. Caption Contest - Tannehill & Bess (Priceless look on Tannehill's face)
    By marino2duper73 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 09-06-2012, 04:20 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 12:36 AM
  4. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 03-02-2012, 11:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •