I mean..why not. He is very talented,a leader and can make all the throws. If he can produce a solid 10 years,why can't he be the choice? Young qbs look great,but usually spaze out in 3 or 4 years if they dont work out anyways.I would take this guy,let him learn and take over the reigns next year. Let's be realistic here...qbs aren't like running backs,they can play forever. Not saying we take him,but those surprise top 10 picks come out of left field and I personally wouldn't be angry or upset with the pick..would you all?
He may play for 10 years years..MAY...but don't expect 10 good years out of him. History shows that just doesn't happen in his situation.
Because he's not worth it.....and he has minimal upside with his age and shoulder injury history, which is why his value is between Rounds 2-4 for most teams. He's going to be 30 before he even has a chance to start, and that's ONLY if he shows he can run a pro-style set and take snaps from under center. Most guys who start at 30 have had years in NFL systems learning what it takes to be a pro QB since the jump from college is such a tough one. He doesn't have that luxury.
you already know my answer on this...but i will say that i like weedens confidence and ****iness...i like that in a qb a lot
hoops scoops 2012 season ..."in 2014 ryan tannehill etches his name in stone amongst the games elite qbs"..."ryan tannehill and andrew luck will carry the afc for the next decade plus the way peyton manning and tom brady have this last decade plus"
for the love of god get a real freaking mike already!!!
If you can trade down in the first round and pick up another 2nd rounder, then I'd consider taking Weeden late in the first round. He can make all the throws and unlike Tannehill, he actually DID make the plays instead of choking like Tannehill did. Tannehill choked a lot and that kind of thing kinda defines a player, IMO.
I watched Gruden's QB thing with Weeden and I was pretty impressed. He made some sick throws, created some space in the pocket for himself, displayed poise (what Matt Moore lacks and it's innate for those who have it) and got the job done.
Neither Moore or Garrard have shown A-level poise throughout their careers. This has to be #1 in evaluation, IMO. Tannehill doesn't deserve getting drafted at #8 because he's yet to display poise.
I think it is a possibility. Fans on this board would freak if it does. If he plays good for "only" 10 years, I'm OK with that. Last year we drafted players that we didn't show pre-draft interest in. Weeden hasn't been shown much pre-draft interest by us, so it raises my index of suspicion a bit.
I love Weeden but you don't need to take him at 8. If he is the target they will most likely have to move into the late first or very early second.