Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut
By arm talent I mean the ability to drive the ball with velocity on the litmus test NFL throws: deep comebacks, deep dig, bang 8 (skinny post), deep out.
Tannehill can make all these throws with better velocity then most in this draft class save for maybe Foles and Osweiler.
To my eye Tannehill can make these throws with ease while on the move where as Foles and Weedens accuracy/velocity is affected/diminished with movement.
You lost me a little here.
Why do you have Tannehill ranked higher then those guys?
Also, something must have been lost in the translation because I don't rate Tannehill as because he's raw.
Rather its his rawness that prevents him from have a higher grade for me.
|
Re: rawness, that is what I gathered from you (that you were downgrading him on it), but I feel like a lot of others have concluded that because he can get so much better than he is, his flaws aren't significant issues. Whereas evaluations seem to be far more terminal on Foles, Cousins, and Moore. It's almost like we've reached a point where college productivity is being held against players: Tannehill is getting pushed up somewhat because he lacks it. That, to me, is backwards.
With Weeden, I don't think he can ever overcome his age, so I'm not rating him like I believe he can. I think you can take Weeden, plug him into your system, enjoy having a strong armed quarterback in the Joe Flacco mold, and just deal with the fact that he's going to be a two read guy in the pros. But those guys are a dime a dozen. I bumped Weeden up to the fourth round because guys below that level don't typically have great ball velocity (Weinke didn't). I like Brock Osweiler, but Tannehill was the better college player of the two. Ergo, he's the better pro prospect, even though he's giving tools up in the comparison.
It seems to me that there are only a couple of QBs in this class that don't throw on the move well, but that seems to be a primary positive that follows Tannehill, because he played wide receiver for years. He's a much better athlete than Foles, but I just feel like if evaluators came out and said "that is why I believe the older prospect (Tannehill) has more upside," that it wouldn't fly against criticism. They are all gifted players physically.
Mostly, I just can't rectify "having the physical tools to be a first round pick" with being the consensus third best guy in the class. It sure seems like someone missed a step somewhere.