Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut
I'm sure there is a school of thought in the FO that is similar to the above.
I guess I'm too trade up averse to advocate trading up for anyone other then a QB.
WRs scare the beejesus out of me and I like our receiving corps at present at have hopes for Hankerson.
I like Richardson but I don't see an Adrian Peterson when I look at him.
I also struggle with whether Kyle's playcalling will ever lend itself to 'featuring' a running back enough to reap the benefits a back like Richardson could provide over our current stable of backs.
I do agree about the compensation and I think it would be reasonable to trade up for Griffin if the cost is next years 1st as opposed to this years 2nd + another pick.
Personally I would try to trade with the Vikes in hopes of lowering the compensation.
I like the idea of staying put for Reif, I believe a sure fire way to prove every aspect of our offense is through upgrading the OL.
I'm old school in the sense because I believe 'winning' at the POA makes any scheme or any set of X's and O's better.
I already know you don't like Tannehill as much as I do but..
I would have to think that there is an element in the FO that wants to take Tannehill.
Maybe 6 is too rich for Ryan and in my heart of hearts I would like to trade down and get Tannehill and the 3rd/4th rated OT Martin or Adams.
But trading down is huge risk when you're gambling on a QB unless they have other QBs that they like later on in the draft like Weeden or Foles.
Then there is always the question of what happens to McCoy should the Browns take Griffin.
I'm probably alone in this but I think McCoy would be a really good fit in Kyle's offense and would provide an instant and meaninful upgrade to Rex and would still have a good amount of to improve before reaching his potential.
|
I really wish someone could explain to me why Ryan Tannehill is such a favorite as a third QB in this draft. In terms of his components, he's not in the top three in any one thing (height, perhaps the exception after Osweiler), whether measured statistically or observationally. And it would seem logical, that if you break the quarterback class down into components and Tannehill comes out average or below average in most skills, that the fact that he combines all of those blah skills into one package shouldn't make a better prospect than guys (like Foles or Cousins) that do one or two things exceptionally well, but have obvious flaws in either their footwork or decision making.
It would seem that grading only on skill sets, Tannehill has absolutely nothing on Weeden or Osweiler, who are both more physically gifted quaterbacks. If grading him on the production he flashed in college, he's not Foles, he's not Cousins, and he's not 30% of Kellen Moore. I don't feel I'm being unfair to Tannehill at all by putting him solidly in the second round of a class I've already given five first round grades in. In doing so, I'm ranking him ahead of Weeden and Osweiler, who are two guys who can just do more with their arms.
I'm with you on Blackmon: he's my number one receiver in this class, but kind of like when Calvin Johnson came out and I couldn't see the separation between him and Dwayne Bowe (its more obvious now), I can't really tell you with any degree of certainty that he'll have a better career than Kendall Wright or Michael Floyd. Which is why I believe, ultimately, he isn't going to go second overall, even though the Rams need a receiver bad.