What's Up with All the Tannihill Love on NFL Network?

[SolidGold]

Originally Posted by metafour

Raw QB that cant even win in college playing for a good program being propped up by his "upside" and "physical tools". I wasn't saying that he is exactly Gabbert; but if you cant see the huge red-flags there then I dont know what to say.

Blew a 17-point halftime lead against Arkansas this season and lost.
Blew a 17-point halftime lead against Oklahoma State this season and lost.
Blew an 11-point halftime lead against Missouri this season and lost.
Blew a 9-point halftime lead against an average Texas team this season and lost.

That sounds like a Top 10 QB to me. /sarcasm

How did a QB blow 17,17,11 and 9 point leads? Just curious...

[metafour]

Originally Posted by bruschis4all

I guess he can't cover or tackle well/sarcasm

Offense scored 3 second half points against Arkansas.
Offense scored 3 second half points against Missouri.
Offense scored 9 second half points against Oklahoma State.
Offense scored 9 second half points against Texas.

[FUNBUNCHER]

Tannehill's last season statistically in 2011 wasn't that bad and when you watch his games and see how often he had key drops by his #1 WR Fuller that were on target at the most critical points in games, you can imagine Tannehill could turn out to be something with more experience and coaching.

I've heard comparisons to Cutler for Tannehill, and if that's remotely close then Tannehill is worth being overdrafted.

With the rookie salary cap, it's no big deal anymore if a guy drafted in the firsr round busts anyway since there's so little guaranteed money tied up in a draft pick.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by gpngc

So throw out the Baylor game film, right? Just throw it out. We don't need to see him when he can stand tall in the pocket, read the defense easily, and has confidence.

By that logic, there would be no combine or pro days either.

I didn't say throw it out. Do you always jump to conclusions so easily?

I just said that you can't compare doing well against a crap defense (I mean, really Baylor's DB corp is like playing against air) to doing well in the NFL.

When he has time and very weak coverage, he can complete passes. Hooray. So can the majority of QBs at all levels of college football.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by metafour

Offense scored 3 second half points against Arkansas.
Offense scored 3 second half points against Missouri.
Offense scored 9 second half points against Oklahoma State.
Offense scored 9 second half points against Texas.

Those are stats worthy of consideration in the discussion. That isn't all drops.

And two of those teams have weak defenses.

[gpngc]

Originally Posted by metafour

Raw QB that cant even win in college playing for a good program being propped up by his "upside" and "physical tools". I wasn't saying that he is exactly Gabbert; but if you cant see the huge red-flags there then I dont know what to say.

Blew a 17-point halftime lead against Arkansas this season and lost.
Blew a 17-point halftime lead against Oklahoma State this season and lost.
Blew an 11-point halftime lead against Missouri this season and lost.
Blew a 9-point halftime lead against an average Texas team this season and lost.

That sounds like a Top 10 QB to me. /sarcasm

I do see the red flags. But it's important to evaluate prospects individually, even if they share similar red flags. We lump guys together too often for no reason other than laziness and to have something to compare. But the NFL draft is an art, not a science and if the two players both bust it will be correlation - NOT causation because of Big12, upside, arm strength, red flags.

And Gabbert's WORST red flags were inability to deal with pressure and lack of intangibles which Tannehill HAS.

I'm not even a huge Tannehill fan. I think he could definitely bust (I don't like his inconsistent accuracy). But some team is going to take him high and he's a better (and different) prospect than Gabbert.

Most importantly, he's unique. And his evaluation should come from game film and interview/character reviews, not baseless comparisons to past prospects from the same conference. Judge the player, not the internet progression up the draft board.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by gpngc

I do see the red flags. But it's important to evaluate prospects individually, even if they share similar red flags. We lump guys together too often for no reason other than laziness and to have something to compare. But the NFL draft is an art, not a science and if the two players both bust it will be correlation - NOT causation because of Big12, upside, arm strength, red flags.

And Gabbert's WORST red flags were inability to deal with pressure and lack of intangibles which Tannehill HAS.

I'm not even a huge Tannehill fan. I think he could definitely bust (I don't like his inconsistent accuracy). But some team is going to take him high and he's a better (and different) prospect than Gabbert.

Most importantly, he's unique. And his evaluation should come from game film and interview/character reviews, not baseless comparisons to past prospects from the same conference. Judge the player, not the internet progression up the draft board.

This is a fair and reasoned stance. I dig it.

[metafour]

Originally Posted by JoeJoeBrown

Those are stats worthy of consideration in the discussion. That isn't all drops.

And two of those teams have weak defenses.

And in the 2 games in which they scored 9 second half points?

21-0 3rd quarter against Oklahoma State
17-0 3rd quarter against Texas

Against Oklahoma State they conceited 27 straight points. Tannehill threw a TD pass with 3 mins left in the game and they got a safety with 5 seconds left (ie: had nothing to do with Tannehill).

[Iamcanadian]

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

Tannehill's last season statistically in 2011 wasn't that bad and when you watch his games and see how often he had key drops by his #1 WR Fuller that were on target at the most critical points in games, you can imagine Tannehill could turn out to be something with more experience and coaching.

I've heard comparisons to Cutler for Tannehill, and if that's remotely close then Tannehill is worth being overdrafted.

With the rookie salary cap, it's no big deal anymore if a guy drafted in the firsr round busts anyway since there's so little guaranteed money tied up in a draft pick.

I'm not saying the guy will bust, just pointing out that I think he is way over hyped as a top 10 prospect based on production at college. I can see him as a mid late 1st rounder but top 10 seems like a reach to me.

A top 10 bust is a major failure for a football team, cap dollars was never an issue IMO, trades of top 5 picks was limited to a few a decade when there was no cap and remained at that figure during the cap era. The cap never affected the trading of top picks.

It usually takes 3 years to determine if a player is a total bust and the guaranteed money was usually over the 1st 3 years of a contract, so in effect it had zero impact financially on the franchise unless the team blundered and paid the bonus due at the end of the 3rd year a la Peyton 28 million due this March.

[gpngc]

I don't want to turn all pro-Tannehill right now and engage in this that much. He's not even one of my favorite prospects at this point.

But you guys are bringing up these TAMU team results for a Senior QB - and your point that they/he blew leads is a valid one that deserves examining.

Just remember, this was his FIRST full season of playing QB.

So it would be like analyzing the team results for RG3 or Luck or any QB propspect during his freshman-sophomore years. Just something to keep in mind.

[Iamcanadian]

Originally Posted by gpngc

I don't want to turn all pro-Tannehill right now and engage in this that much. He's not even one of my favorite prospects at this point.

But you guys are bringing up these TAMU team results for a Senior QB - and your point that they/he blew leads is a valid one that deserves examining.

Just remember, this was his FIRST full season of playing QB.

So it would be like analyzing the team results for RG3 or Luck or any QB propspect during his freshman-sophomore years. Just something to keep in mind.

He had 19 starts I believe, more than Sanchez and Sanchez looked like a world beater in college. That is almost 2 seasons minus 5 starts.

[metafour]

Originally Posted by gpngc

Just remember, this was his FIRST full season of playing QB.

How does this help your case? If I'm drafting a kid with 1 full season of QB experience with a Top 10-12 pick; the kid BETTER have led his team to a phenomenal season in which he WON games for his team. See: Cam Newton.

That fact only makes his "hype" even more ridiculous. People are jumping up and down over a QB with limited experience who couldn't even step up and secure victories for his team in games in which they had significant halftime leads. That sounds like a 2nd round project to me; not a Top 10 pick. Similarly to how Gabbert should have been a 2nd round project.

[Steady Lurkin]

He's being overhyped because he's a rhythm passer with a power arm, and that's an incredibly unique and valuable skillset.

People knock him for the team failures his Senior year, but I guess being the only QB in CFB history to beat Nebraska, Texas, and OU in the same season doesn't count.

He good, and people have been trying to tell y'all that since September. He's not raw in the traditional mechanical/pocket sense that most QBs are - that's actually one of his bigger assets. He just needs starts.

People keep saying to "draft and develop" him, I think he needs to be thrown into the fire to get more experience. That's all he needs.

[Thunder&Lightning]

Tannehill is my least favorite player in the draft... by far

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by Steady Lurkin

He's being overhyped because he's a rhythm passer with a power arm, and that's an incredibly unique and valuable skillset.

People knock him for the team failures his Senior year, but I guess being the only QB in CFB history to beat Nebraska, Texas, and OU in the same season doesn't count.

He good, and people have been trying to tell y'all that since September. He's not raw in the traditional mechanical/pocket sense that most QBs are - that's actually one of his bigger assets. He just needs starts.

People keep saying to "draft and develop" him, I think he needs to be thrown into the fire to get more experience. That's all he needs.

I'm basing all of my opinions on his lack of experience and watching most of his games this past season. I think he's a mediocre QB (hell of an athlete).

[descendency]

Tannehill's progression as a QB and athletic skill is what has teams intrigued.

I doubt he goes top 10, but some team will over draft him.

[A Perfect Score]

I really like Tannehill. He's definitely going to go higher then most people think. Top 10 wouldn't shock me whatsoever. Right now, I like Seattle at 12 as the most likely suitor if they don't lock down Peyton.

I was thinking the other day though, what about the Bills? Tannehill's skillset is made for Gailey's offense. I know they just paid Fitzpatrick a ton of money, but wasn't the intent always to draft a successor and let Fitz ride out the growing pains until the new guy was ready?

[bitonti]

if Tannyhill was at Mobile, and Indy, and blew up both places I'd have no problem saying he's top 10. He didn't tho. It's not his fault but the timing of the injury drops him to late 1 or early 2. Others will say he's like Cutler or Locker or whoever, and that's fine, but those guys were healthy for the major events.

[Lil Quip]

Originally Posted by I_C_DeadPeople

NFL Network and the fans are probably tired of hearing the obvious - Luck and RGIII are #1 and #2 picks - there is little intrigue left with these 2 (other than the Rams trading out). So the move to the next guy in the high profile position and play him up, they are just keeping the interest there for draft day.

This 100%. Luck 1 and Griffin 2. Luck hasn't done anything to drop him from number one pick. Griffin has done a ton to cement himself as the very very nice consolation prize for losing the suck for luck campaign. However Luck has seemed to have done enough keep himself comfortably higher enough over Griffin to not get into a Manning vs. Leaf argument, which would give this some life.

In addition, I don't even think pro day workouts are going to change a thing. It would have to be something tragic.

Basically Luck and Griffin is passe. You can rave about their high character. Kind of boring. Great to see but completely low on intrigue.

QB is the biggest position in football. They need a QB to talk about. In addition there are more than two teams who really need one, so hyping one isn't a big risk as, most likely a third guy will go much higher.

Tannehill fits the bill the best, although I think teams trying to replicate the Dalton magic with Cousins seems another option.

[Caulibflower]

Originally Posted by gpngc

And Gabbert's WORST red flags were inability to deal with pressure and lack of intangibles which Tannehill HAS.

I've said this before, and it's worth bringing up again - People are saying he's like Gabbert because both are considered "high-upside" guys who have a lot of physical ability. But because Gabbert looked awful last year, people are looking at this years' version of the athletic, high-upside guy and saying, "Well, it didn't work last year. Tannehill isn't a first-round quarterback. Gabbert sucked."

But if you're saying that, you're completely forgetting about how many people last year insisted that Gabbert's reaction to pressure (real or imaginary, even) was TERRIBLE, and most of the people who made that point take composure to be a critical trait of NFL QBs. You can have all the athleticism in the world, but if you don't have composure you can't play in the NFL. I've written from my very first posts on Tannehill that he's got serious toughness in the pocket and doesn't wilt under pressure. That's something a QB MUST be able to do, and when you combine that with his athleticism, then you're looking at an NFL QB. No prospect can ever be projected to the NFL with certainty, but if you've got a great skillset, great poise and intelligence, I'm going to take the one full season the guy had a starter, take with it the grain of salt that it was his first season playing D-1 QB, and say, "This guy has some serious potential." Where with Gabbert, you just found yourself saying, "Well, sure, he's 6'5" or whatever and can run and has a strong arm, but he's a total ******* ***** (<--- censor hint: they mew)."

If there's a prospect people want to compare to Gabbert this year, don't be lazy and just try to find an athletic yet unpolished QB. If it's anyone, it's Dontari Poe.

[Steady Lurkin]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[holt_bruce81]

Tannehill's pocket presence is 100x better than Gabbert's.

I still don't understand how a lot of you can already call Gabbert a bust. Jacksonville was horrible last year. Did he play bad? sure he did but he was a rookie, it was expected. I think the play of Bradford, Newton and Dalton their rookie seasons has really changed the opinion of many fans on when a Quarterback should start having success in the NFL.

[Steady Lurkin]

Originally Posted by holt_bruce81

Tannehill's pocket presence is 100x better than Gabbert's.

I still don't understand how a lot of you can already call Gabbert a bust. Jacksonville was horrible last year. Did he play bad? sure he did but he was a rookie, it was expected. I think the play of Bradford, Newton and Dalton their rookie seasons has really changed the opinion of many fans on when a Quarterback should start having success in the NFL.

It depends on how correctable his terrible pocket presence is.

Even if he irons things out mechanically, how much can this really improve?

Nobody questions Gabbert's tools. Ever. It's all upstairs with that kid.

I assume people only saw the primtetime games for Jacksonville...imagine seeing that **** every single ******* week.

[descendency]

Originally Posted by Steady Lurkin

It depends on how correctable his terrible pocket presence is.

If you **** the bed every time someone gets blocked passed you, then it's not correctable.

Pocket presence is only something you can develop in live fire situations.

[Roddoliver]

Don't you remember all the love for Blaine Gabbert last year? "I still haven't watched him on film, but he is the best QB in this draft!" I want this job.