The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Yes, it sounds like a dumb question. Logic dictates that the more the experience the better. That would make Tannehill a huge risk with only 19 starts.

But wait a minute! I just read Brady only had 25 starts and if I recall, Chad Henne was a 4 yr. starter at Michigan. With that thinking, Brady should be a backup somewhere and Henne winning SB's.

So, just how important is experience? Apparently as not important as one might think. Consider too that Tannehill is no where close to his peak. 

Matt Cassell never started in college. Mark Sanchez only started 16 total games. Cam Newton only started 1 year of college ball.

I think it is one of those subjects like the Wonderlic. For every example to prove a point one way, there is another example to prove otherwise. That my friend, is what makes drafting so darn hard. lol

Totally agree

+2

This is why Tannehill's 19 starts doesn't scare me!

I never did care for Henne but, figured him coming from Michigan might make up for my thoughts of him...  I'm not sure how Tannehill is going to turn out... I'm putting my faith in Philbin and Sherman!

It is one piece of the puzzle.

One relevent fact ought be why didn't he start more.

Was it because you were injured? -- well than said player could be injury prone and thus a risk.

Was it because there was another outstanding QB on the team.  Then he might still be pretty good.  If Cassel was willing to transfer there were plenty of teams that would have let him play.  But he could not beat out two Heisman winners one of whom is a pro-bowler.  That doesn't mean the guy is bad.

OTOH, if said player was a backup to a player that went undrafted,  I would consider that a warning sign. 

In this case, not being able to beat out Jerrod Johnson or Stephen McGee is a bigger problem than not being able to beat out Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart.

Likewise with Brady, the coach that recruited him left and the new coach brought in his "own guy."  So he was a back up because of politics.

I would say the bottom line is look at the film for the games he did play.  If he looks like an NFL quality QB, then it doesn't really matter how many or how few games he played in.  OTOH, a QB that started all four years but didn't have much success then his experience doesn't mean much.

The biggest problem with not having a lot of starts isn't the lack of experience but the lack of film.  I would rather be able to look at 30 games worth of film to determine if the player has the requist skill set then try to determine that from only 5 games worth of film. 

Everyone seems to be on the same page, here, and I agree.

Does a considerable amount of starts mean something?  Yes.  Does it mean everything?  No.

It is cause for concern, but only if there are other factors that lead you to evaluate it.

In this example, however, would you not agree the following:

Sanchez is rapidly approaching bust status, the jury is still out on Cassell but he still hasn't really shown much of anything and Newton needs to show he can do what he did for more than one year?

I think it helps, but you have to understand that if a guy started all 4 years, his NFL success may not be because of that. It may be because the guy was obviously talented, as evidenced by the fact that he started all 4 years in college.

Along these lines, I think "quality" starts should be taken into account. 4 years starting at Hawaii is not the same as 2 years starting at USC or an SEC school. -EK

Yes, but...

Almost all QBs are "busts".  It's really hard to take one stat and apply it to QBs and say it doesn't matter.  With QBs, almost nothing matters.  For every Peyton Manning (a guy with a college pedigree), there are 20 flops.  And every once in a while, a Tom Brady pops up out of nowhere.

It's a position where most people are going to fail, and it's hard to attribute that to a single factor.

^Agreed.  At the end of the day, Sanchez took the Jets to two straight AFC title games.  He was a stud in the fourth quarter for two seasons in a row, he looked like a different QB.  Cassell looked outstanding prior to his injury.  Newton...you don't need to say much more.  The only issue I have with all three is the "but" coming after all three statements.

I don't give the "but" on Newton.  He has proven that he has the skills to succeed, as and far as a "pick" is concerned, he's a success.  Now, he can always become a head-case, get hurt, or not stay mentally tough and lose it, but I think that it's safe to say that the person credited with making the selection of Newton did their job correctly and picked properly, regardless of what happens from here on out.

But he actually did beat out Jerrod Johnson in 2010 who was considered at the beginning of the year to be a dark horse Heisman candidate and who is now a QB for the Steelers. If anything it shows that Johnson was ahead of Tannehill QB wise when Tannehill first went to A&M, but eventually Tannehill overtook him and outplayed him and is now considered a much better prospect than Johson was. That's not a knock on Tannehill, that perhaps shows that Tannehill still has not reached his peak whereas it appears that Johnson peaked early.

Tannehill wasn't really considered for the QB position when McGee was there. He was pretty much told straight up that he would not be competing for the QB position because McGee and Johnson were already there, so he switched to WR and became A&M's best WR. I wouldn't consider that a knock on Tannehill at all, in fact that's one of the reason's why I like him. He's willing to do whatever the team asks him to do without whining, complaining or switching teams. Instead he continued to work his butt off and eventually overtook Johnson.

I believe you have pointed out before that Brady wasn't handed the starting QB spot, he had to work for it. I would think you would appreciate what Tannehill was able to accomplish, or does it only apply to Patriots? That's a rhetorical question by the way. :)

^^^ As I said the biggest problem with drafting a guy like Tanhill (or Brady or Cassel) isn't the lack of experience, but the lack of film. 

There is a logical reason why nobody used a first round pick on Brady.  While hindsight says he should have been first round talent.  It would have made little sense for any team to take him round one.  How far he feel didn't make much sense either -- he should have been grabbed by the end of the 3rd, not at the tailend of the 6th.  But there wasn't enough film on Brady to warrent him being taking in the top half of the first round, same with Tanhill.   

It is hard to judge exactly what he can or can not do.  If we are talking about taking a chance with a 6th or 7th round pick on a player with insufficent film is one thing. (or for that matter a 2nd or 3rd).  Very risky to do so with a pick in the top half of the draft.  Although less so now with the new CBA than it was with the old CBA. 

I completely disagree that Tannehill and Brady are alike. I have no clue why Brady fell to the 6th round, but it wasn't JUST because of lack of tape on him. He played in 25 games for Michigan so obviously he played enough to get a pretty good idea of what he was like. People just didn't think he would make a great QB. Sometimes things just happen weird like that. They were wrong. Sure he should have been taken earlier in retrospect, but that happnes practically every year. Not to the level of Brady, but guys just get missed and then end up having great NFL career's all the time, it has nothing to do with lack of game tape on them.

Honestly, I don't know what you people are reading about Tannehill or maybe you just aren't because he graded out higher than Jake Locker last year. He's only a couple points behind Luck which most are saying is the best pure QB prospect in decades. All this talk about he would be a 2nd round pick if so and so came out is pure speculation. Instead of there being 3 QB's expected to be taken in the first round, their would be 4, that's it. Now there's a big difference between #8 and #25, I get that and yes if you want to believe that Tannehill is really a player better taken at #25 rather than #8, I won't argue with you there, but to say that he's a 2nd or 3rd round pick is just not true based on how the scouts have viewed his talent. He's moved up because he's a QB, there's no question, but he's not being considered in the top 10 JUST because he's a QB. There's a TON of potential there. Should potential make you a top 10 pick? That's debatable, but it doesn't take you from a 3rd round pick to the top 10. That's just inacurate.

Most quarterbacks have poor coaching in college or run a "college system" that isn't in the NFL. So basing their college stats/days on NFL success has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Big Ben went to Miami-OH, Flaco to Delaware,  and Pennington went to Marshall, none are NFL factories by any means but they have (had) successful NFL careers. Then you got a guy like McNabb who was in a "freeze option" offense in college and started 4 years at Syracuse and he made the transition to the NFL with no issues in the west coast offense.

Give a talented QB quality coaching on the NFL level and I don't care how many games they started in college, where they played their college ball, or anything that happened in college. It's not the same game. College results mean little. Hell, read what they said about Marino heading into the 1983 draft. Your eyes will pop out of your head! lol

I give the "but" on Newton only in this aspect:

...but can he do it again, or was he a flash in the pan?

There's more than just 1 reason that Ryan Tannehill's stock has risen. Most of you seem to be assuming or suggesting it's only because he's a QB and only because no other QB's are rated highly other than Luck and RGIII. We'll that's not exactly accurate.

Part of the reason that his stock has gone up since the end of the year is also because that some people have taken a closer look at him and have changed their mind a bit on what he offers. At the end of the year most people looked at his stats and his production on the field and graded him based mostly on those numbers, but then they started to take a closer look. They took another look at those games where he didn't have great stats or production and they  realized that a lot of the time he was putting the ball where it needed to be put and his WR's were letting him down. Don't forget that at one time Tannehill was the #1 WR on the team. Tannehill didn't have a Fleener or a Kendall Wright to throw the ball to.

They also were impressed with his pro day. He'd been working on some things since the end of the year and his footwork, mechanics and accuracy showed to be improved since the end of the year. Combine that with the fact that he only played a year and a half at QB at A&M and it became apparent that he's still learning which suggests his production in the NFL might be better than what his college stats would suggest.

Now are people talking themselves into this just because he's a QB? It's possible, I can't say it's not, but there's also the possibility that Tannehill is actually a much better QB than his stats and production in college suggest.

Most of what I read now there's no question as to whether or not Miami should take him at #8 if he's there, the only question seems to be whether or not Miami should risk waiting that long and should move up to get him.

I would rather have Tannehill at 8 who might need half a year or a year on the bench but has a ceiling of being "great".....than Brock Osweiler who will be there in Rd 2 and who will need probably 2+ years on the bench and has a ceiling of being "just ok."

Osweiler will be a dumb pick!

I really dislike using Rodgers/Brees/Brady/Marino as justification for reaching on QBs.  For every future HOFer that is drafted too low, there is plenty of Blaine Gabbert/Mark Sanchez/Brady Quinn/Vince Young/Matt Leinart/Jason Campbell/J.P. Losman/Byron Leftwich/Kyle Boller/Rex Grossman/Joey Harrington/Patrick Ramsey to go around.

If you're telling me that Tannehill has an elite NFL skillset, then fine.  When you draft players like that, sometimes you get Cam Newton or Philip Rivers, and sometimes you get Alex Smith or Ryan Leaf.  Them's the breaks.

But don't draft Tannehill just because, well, you have to do something!  If you're going to reach, reach for the next Aaron Rodgers (RG3) and not the next Matt Ryan (Tannehill).

I think everyone agrees that we don'r want them to take Tannehill just to say "we took a QB!"  We want them to take Tannehill if, they truly feel he is "their" guy!  I don't think anyone would be upset with Matt Ryan either...  Ryan has shown some promise. 

Albert Breer of NFL Network reporting Miami was very high on Tannehill BEFORE they hired Mike Sherman. Hiring Sherman has re-enforced their stance Tannehill.

Breer said its not a lock Miami takes him at 8 but they do like him alot. Also he said its unlikely Miami would trade up to take him.

I do not think you would find many fans of this team upset if Matt Ryan were the QB of this team.  He is head & shoulders above what we have had in a long time.

I'm with MikeO on this one.  If Miami is able to grab Tannehill without crippling themselves in the draft to do so, I say do it.

Sorry, I used a really bad first example in that analogy; instead of Aaron Rodgers, I should have said John Elway or Peyton Manning.

When I mentioned Matt Ryan, I meant "draft day Matt Ryan"; the Matt Ryan that was a reach at #1 and a huge question mark, not the Matt Ryan that has proven a great value at #3 (and would have been a Carson Palmer-like pick as #1).

IMO, the "IT" factor is more important than experience. That was the problem with Henne. He just never looked like a leader or took command. It would have went a long way if he would have put Marshall in his place instead of lowering his head and remaining quiet.

That said, even though I have watched quite a bit of tape on Tannehill but am still unsure if he has it or not. Just look around the league. All the great one's just ooze passion!

I am for that IF Philbin/Ireland/Sherman like Tannehill. If Miami doesn't like him or doesn't think he is "the future" then I have no problem with them passing on Tannehill. I have total faith in Philbin/Sherman, two very good offensive minds, in spotting a quality QB. Now, Ireland does have final say but even he has to realize the QB position can't be ignored anymore

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/40525/bill-polian-advocates-vikings-dolphins-trade

Bill Polian is for Miami trading up to #3 for you know who. Giving up a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick

Good god I hope not. It is a stretch to take him at 8 for many people (myself included). Now someone thinks Miami should give up three players for him? Baaaaaaaaaad idea. -EK

Man.

So in this situation you have to be VERY sure he's going at #3 and Cleveland is going to take him.  Otherwise, why not roll the dice and try to work out something for the #4 pick and try to lower the price?

Either way, I don't think I would trade THIS year's 2 & 3.  The draft is too deep.  I would consider "playing ball" and trading this year's overall 8 (clearly) and this year's 3rd round pick, and make the second round conditional.  I would also want something coming back, like a 4th.

I could not agree more. I like Polian but am starting to see why he is unemployed. Why do sportwriters continue to write about the opinion from someone that was fired?? lol

You are correct.  Tannehill and Brady are opposites.  Brady's stock fell because of less than spectaculer proday and combine (realitive to his actual on field performance in college) Tanehill's rose because his proday and combine performance.

I have noticed a pattern what someone does in actual games in college is a better indicator of how they do in the pros than how they perform in the non-contact drills of proday and combine.  

I think it would be a major stretch to trade up to #3 for Tannehill.  I would imagine you'd have to give up at least a 2nd and another pick in a future draft (maybe more) to move that high.  That's reaching.

However, if Philban/Sherman are sold that they MUST have him, I would have to trust their judgement on the move.  I don't think anyone else is in better position to really know this guy.  Hopefully, Sherman isn't too close to the QB to interfere with his decision making.

That's easy for Bill Polian to say, he doesn't have to live with the decision if Tannehill doesn't pan out.  No one who ACTUALLY has a say in the draft is going to do that. Draft picks are FAR too valuable now that the salaries have been adjusted to just throw them away with reckless abandon.

If Miami were going to move up, I think it would be take Blackmon, not Tannehill.

I think Miami should stand pat. I still don't believe that Cleveland is gonna take Tannehill, I think they'll end up with Richardson or Blackmon and the only thing you have to worry about then is someone jumping over you to take Tannehill, but again I think draft picks are too valuable and no one is just going to give away draft picks to jump up and no one is gonna move down for nothing. Someone would have to be absolutely convinced that Tannehill is a franchise QB and I just don't see that. He's not a sure thing. It makes the most sense for Miami because of Sherman. He's gonna install an offense that Tannehill is familiar with. The terminology is gonna be similar. Tannehill has a much better chance of hitting the ground running with Miami then with anyone else. It just all makes sense for Miami. It doesn't make as much sense for ANYONE else.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I see no reason to trade up for Blackmon. He is going to be a "GOOD" WR but probably not a "GREAT" one. In a draft deep at WR's why trade up for a guy who might never be an elite WR.

Hell take Michael Floyd at 8 and you are getting essentially the same type of player as Blackmon

I agree with that. You only make that move up to get him if you are totally sold he is the answer and can't lose him under any circumstance. Otherwise if they feel the need to come out of Rd 1 with a QB they could slide back from 8 and take Weeden in the 10-15 range if need be. That is if they aren't totally sold on Tannehill or don't want to move up.

I think it would be worth it to trade up exactly one spot with JAX (before the draft) as insurance.  Here's why.

Draft evaluations seem to indicate that there are 6 elite players in this draft: Luck, RG3, Kalil, Blackmon, Richardson, and Claiborne.  If CLE (or someone else) takes Tannehill, the #7 pick (JAX) will be in position to get one of those six.  If no one takes Tannehill, MIA will be in perfect position to get him.

Based on the draft value chart, MIA could trade the #8 overall pick and CHI's 2012 3rd rounder (pick #73) to JAX for their #7 overall and their 4th rounder (pick #101).

While I agree that college production is a better indicator of NFL success than the pro-day or the combine is, I think it's still a pretty poor indicator. All college production really shows is potential. But potential is just that, potential. It doesn't translate into success and nothing really does. Some guys are just late bloomers and it "clicks" when they get to the NFL. Other's peak early and never have the success in the pros that they had in college. Some are just miscast in their role on their college team or perhaps are stuck behind another player and don't really get a chance to showcase their talent and the opposite can occur where they are in the perfect role in college and really shine and then are miscast when they get to the pros. Still others it becomes a physical problem, where maybe they are big enough or fast enough for college, but not big enough or fast enough for the pros. Still others look to be too small for the NFL like Zach Thomas and nobody really expects much of them despite playing well in college and then they go onto the NFL and excel despite their size defeciencies. The list is nearly endless as to why some guys excel in the pros and some don't. Teams do their best to try to pick out the guys that will do well, but at the end of the day, you don't really know until they strap on the pads and go out and there and start playing.

Reading the Miami Herald it looks like Miami has put all of their eggs in the Tannehill or Osweiler basket. If they can't (or don't want) get Tannehill in Rd 1 they will take Osweiler in Rd 2. Those are the only two QB's they have put any time and work into.

Osweiler really scares the hell out of me. If you thought Henne sucked this guy is his clone. Osweiler was beyond terrible in the Red Zone in college. Around 40% completion % in the redzone. He left school early not because he is ready for the NFL but because ASU fired their coach and he didn't want to go through a coaching change and run the"read option" offense when they hired the new coach and that is his style.

Some of you are upset that Tannehill was a 2nd round grade at one point and now might go in Rd 1. Osweiller is currently a 4th round grade that will go early 2nd. 

This is my fear, that if they don't get Tannehill they waste a  2nd or 3rd round pick on a QB who sucks and they take a QB for the sake of taking a QB who has no potential to ever be good. And Osweiler would fit that category.

Also saw on NFL Network last night that Cleveland is spending alot of time with Weeden now and they kind of like him. They like he is older and could come and in be ready right away.

This is my fear about Tannehill- with the added bonus of wasting a FIRST ROUND TOP TEN pick on him. I just don't see what everyone else sees in him, and now there's talk of trading MORE picks to move up and get him? -EK

Tossing on my rose colored glasses for one second:

I do suppose luck has to be on our side sooner or later, yes?  Eventually Miami should hit on ONE of these guys. 

It may be just me, but moving up for a WR scares the bejesus out of me. Not only is the bust rate second only to a QB, but it seems like 75% of the head cases are WR's. 

It was in 1983. Sixth QB selected in the draft became a hall of famer.  Not many franchises have that kind of luck twice. 

Pats have gotten lucky once.  Can't really call the Colts selecting a future Hall of famer with the 1st pick overall to be "lucky".  Montana as a 3rd round pick was.

I'll settle for better than any of the QB's Miami has had since Marino. Is that asking too much? :)

Getting Steve Young, a garbage pick up from Tampa Bay at the time, was pretty "lucky" as well.

Why can't lightning strike twice?

It already did, in the form of Brett Favre

I would rather give the #8 pick to Pittsburgh and sign and trade for Mike Wallace instead of drafting either Floyd or Blackmon if it were me

You've mentioned Wallace more than a few times. What's that about? His second half of the season looked AWFUL. He looked slower and the numbers showed it. It's not like he had a lot to offer beyond speed. He's not bigger or a better route runner than Blackmon. Doesn't have "better hands." Not younger. I don't agree here at all. As much as you killed Marshall for his drops, now you want a guy who was tied for 11th most drops in the AFC? Give me younger (by four years when the season starts) and faster now, and I will take a chance over older, smaller, and used to be faster, lol. I think there's something to be said for the fact that no one- literally NO ONE (NFL.com reported "there wasn't a hint of a rumor regarding Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Mike Wallace")- wanted to sign him as a free agent, or even kick the tires around. -EK

IF John Elway signed with the Colts and didn't force his way out back in the day,  their QB chain would be something like Unitas, Elway, Peyton, Luck

With a few gaps in there, but that is pretty damn good!

I don't consider drafting a HOF player with the first pick overall "lucky"  In theory he is already considered the best player of the year and more than one person makes the HOF per year. Just like drafting a guy in the 7th round that gets cut before the end of training camp is a "major bust"

Drafting a HOF player in round 3-7 involves some luck.  Having a guy who you draft in the first round never start is a bust. 

John Elway's team won the Super Bowl the season before Peyton Manning was drafted.  So there's a bit of a flaw in that logic.