Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG
Yeah the value judgment is tough and really requires knowing the whole picture. Based on my viewing this year I like Tannehill...but maybe not for us in our current situation... and not sold on the other two being right for our system and/or how they project career-wise. I like Tannehill simply based on his "look" and the fact that he was pretty impressive for a guy who played WR until half through last season (I believe)...he can't possibly project to a top 15 pick though. I'd be shocked.
|
All three guys look the part of the pro quarterback. Foles and Jones throw better balls down the field than Tannehill. Maybe a lot better.
Tannehill is the only one of the bunch with athleticism that exceeds "functional." Because of that athleticism, he will be taken higher. But typically that ability to run with the football is not what makes quarterbacks great at playing quarterback.
This is just my sense of watching all three of them this year, but Tannehill is incredibly limited as a passer. I know a lot of people watch him and think about what could be when he gets to the pro level and gets to study the offense and opposing offenses on a scout team, and how good he can be. But I just don't see the ability to use the whole field and throw people open in man coverage, which makes him an awful fit here since our system is all about blowing holes open in zones and throwing a moving receiver into a void.
With that said, if we've learned anything from the last five years, it is that players with functional athleticism can move the chains by using their legs if the opponent wants to play man coverage. And Tannehill can do that. I'm not totally sold he will be able to make quick enough decisions to turn designed passing plays with progressions into
successful runs: that takes a really refined instinct for pocket mechanics. I have no idea if he can do that or not. For some guys, athleticism is a huge help to their game, for other guys it is a curse. It has long been easier to predict pocket passers than dual threat guys.
Landry Jones and Ryan Tannehill have both undergone
very troubling regressions down the stretch this year. In the middle of the season, they seemed to both be no-doubter first rounders. But now what? Landry Jones wasn't even able to stay on the field in high leverage situations for his college team. And Tannehill quarterbacked a team that was consistently awful playing with a lead.
That's why I liked Foles the most out of them. Sure, his team was awful. But he made every kind of throw on film, he creates space to function well, he actually had better mechanics coming from under center than from the shotgun. Foles gets caught on his first read if he's going to break open, but not unjustifiably, IMO. He likes to tight window that first read rather than move on in the progression, but that may be as much a function of playing with a bunch of receivers who can't consistently beat coverage as anything.
Foles' offense also showed the tendency to use a lot of two or three man combination routes, the same ones that Kyle Shanahan uses periodically, and he reads those progressions very well. Does that make him a one-side of the field guy? I guess. But even in the pros, they don't use two sides of the field on anything except deeper routes. And Kyle Shanahan certainly does not require a player to use two sides of the field in his progression.