Peyton Manning or RGIII your choice

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

A) March 24th, 2011.

B) Emory, but I took some time off to get my PhD in French Literature at Oxford. I really wanted to do something for me. Anyway after that I did my residency at John Hopkins.

C) Depends on how hot the rookie QB. RGIII is a day 1 starter. Everyone else behind him is a group of guys that shouldn't be starting before week 8 at the very least.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to a triple bypass procedure, plus I got blood all over my keyboard.

Weren't you one of the ones who said the same thing when I suggested we get Andy Dalton? yeah, I'm pretty sure you were. Just pointing out how wrong you an be.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

[/B]

Giving up a 3rd rounder for someone that wasn't even drafted and hasn't done much outside of pre season doesn't make much sense to me. Clausen doesn't even belong in the NFL. These two could be worse than Rex and Beck.

it's about future potential with Hoyer really. He's extremely well regarded by many NFL teams perhaps more so than Flynn in some cases.

Think of Clausen as Clemens from last year. Low risk option.

[GTripp0012]

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

McShay speculates that it would take a 1st, 2nd, and 4th for the Redskins to move up to #2.

Pass

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

So could we compare some of the interest in Hoyer by NFL clubs to Schuab when he was traded out of ATL. Highly regarded but never had a chance to play.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

So could we compare some of the interest in Hoyer by NFL clubs to Schuab when he was traded out of ATL. Highly regarded but never had a chance to play.

That's probably a good comp, though Schaub was clearly better regarded on draft day.

[NM Redskin]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

So could we compare some of the interest in Hoyer by NFL clubs to Schuab when he was traded out of ATL. Highly regarded but never had a chance to play.

And Matt Flynn is Kevin Kolb.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Would Peyton Manning avoid Redskins because of Eli? - DC Sports Bog - The Washington Post

Mark Schrleth's view on Peyton vs his brother twice a year. I like this one.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

I can't speak to why or how anyone else ranks the prospects.
But I'm not grading Tannehill on upside which seems to be what you suggest above.

(I'm simplifying a great deal here for the sake of brevity)
Cousins and Moore for me have physical limitations that guide their rankings.
Foles compared to Tannhell gives equal tier arm talent but without the wheels.

College production isn't a major factor for my QB assessments one way or another.
I'm not a big stats guy when it comes to judging QBs.
Sure they're valuable when assessing somethings like efficiency.
But imo stats are tricky as an assessment tool because the stats are too enmeshed with the scheme, coaching and surrounding talent to make an accurate measure about the prospect by leaning heavily on stats.

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.

This is where we diverge.
Although I think Weeden has 'plus' arm talent I don't think its on the elite NFL level which is where I put Flacco's.
I see Weeden as a less mobile but stronger armed Andy Dalton.
Regardless of how many reads or how far along any QB prospect is right now; to have success at the next level they're all gonna have to become more effecient multiple progression read QBs.
Whether its Weeden or any other prospect.

Originally Posted by GT

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.

I agree that Tannehill is a much better prospect then Brock but for me it has little to do with the differences in their college production.

Originally Posted by GT

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.

There are different levels of apptitude when it comes to the different QB traits.
If prospect X does something better then prospect Y you diminish they're separation when you say 'they all do X well'.
Imo for evaluations purposes its important to look at how the prospects stack up next to each other not just in general.
While it may be true that most of the QBs in this class throw the ball decent on the run.
Luck, Griffin, Tannehill and Wilson throw it better on the run the rest of the prospects therefore in that one aspect (out of the many measureables) they rank higher.

Originally Posted by GT

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.

Again in a comparative assessment if both QBs throw the ball the same yet Tannehill is a remarkably better athlete that can throw better on the run and make plays with his legs it makes him that much better of a prospect.

Originally Posted by GT

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.

Well, that's not the argument I'm making, so I don't know what to tell you about that line of thought.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Weren't you one of the ones who said the same thing when I suggested we get Andy Dalton? yeah, I'm pretty sure you were. Just pointing out how wrong you an be.

I didn't like Dalton because he was a Ginger. Any problems I had with Dalton had little if anything to do with his playing ability.

[NM Redskin]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I didn't like Dalton because he was a Ginger. Any problems I had with Dalton had little if anything to do with his playing ability.

Did you know no ginger has ever won the superbowl? Those people just dont have what it takes.

[NM Redskin]

Im talking QBs here

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

There are different levels of apptitude when it comes to the different QB traits.
If prospect X does something better then prospect Y you diminish they're separation when you say 'they all do X well'.
Imo for evaluations purposes its important to look at how the prospects stack up next to each other not just in general.
While it may be true that most of the QBs in this class throw the ball decent on the run.
Luck, Griffin, Tannehill and Wilson throw it better on the run the rest of the prospects therefore in that one aspect (out of the many measureables) they rank higher.

I think that "he throws the ball well on the run" is a different assertion than "he throws on the run considerably better than most of this class." The former shows up in most Tannehill scouting reports. The latter is a more controversial position. If I'm attempting to diminish the separation it is only because I feel comfortable grouping with what I would consider to be a secondary skill, based on there not being enough passing attempts on the move to determine relative proficiency.

Regardless, it's not fair to ask you to represent the opinion of the masses, instead of your own evaluations, although that's basically what I'm asking. I'm trying to get educated on what has separated Ryan Tannehill from most of the class. I think you've helped with that.

What I was hoping for is someone to come out and say "this is what you're missing GTripp" and then explain why I've completely overlooked something in my Tannehill evaluation that no one else in this class offers (Luck/Griffin excluded). Thing is, I'm more convinced than ever that the separation between Tannehill and like four other guys is not based on things that would be reflected on an NFL field, but more in the fact that he looks the part.

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying that comparing his ability to throw on the run to that of Russell Wilson does little to explain why he his draft stock hasn't yet taken a huge blow because of the things he struggles with, like throwing some of the deeper routes with timing and accuracy.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

What I was hoping for is someone to come out and say "this is what you're missing GTripp" and then explain why I've completely overlooked something in my Tannehill evaluation that no one else in this class offers (Luck/Griffin excluded). Thing is, I'm more convinced than ever that the separation between Tannehill and like four other guys is not based on things that would be reflected on an NFL field, but more in the fact that he looks the part.

I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying that comparing his ability to throw on the run to that of Russell Wilson does little to explain why he his draft stock hasn't yet taken a huge blow because of the things he struggles with, like throwing some of the deeper routes with timing and accuracy.

Well that's because I'm not saying Tannehill's ability to throw on the run alone is what separates him from the other prospects, although it is a part of it, and I don't agree that he struggles throwing the deeper routes.
I tend to look at prospects the way many coaches do: don't tell me what they can't do, tell me what they can.
And btw, comparing him to Wilson is a compliment in my book.
Wilson is my favorite QB prospect in the draft but I think his height is going to be a huge hurdle preventing him from getting the same opportunity to lead a franchise compared to the over 6' QBs. (but that's a whole different discussion)

First off I don't think the gaps between the QBs in any draft are quite as large as the media and the league in general makes them out to be.
When you're talking about draftable QB prospects were already talking about the cream of the cream.
So often times were merely splitting hairs except those hairs represent several draft slots worth of difference.
But again I digress.

Its hard to explain to someone what they're missing when they look at prospect because I don't know you're full assessment of him.
And in general if you don't see or acknowledge a trait in a prospect its doubtful anyone is going be able to get you to see it. (e.g. Locker vs Gabbert last year)

but re:"this is what you're missing GTripp"
To my eye Tannehill has as much if not more physical talent then Luck.
Imo he has better arm talent then Luck, he's more athletic, he can throw equally as well on the run (which is a critically important trait that some elite QBs possess Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Mike Vick, Ben Rothlisberger etc), they're about on the same level in throwing motion, I think Tannehill has a slightly quicker release and for me the most critical assest for me is playmaking.
Tannehill can can extends plays with his legs by evading pressure and can also gain chunks of yards that extend drives with his legs.
The main attributes that prevent Tannehill from being in the same tier as Luck are attainable for Tannehill through coaching and experience.
Tannehill simply lacks 'command'.

Also, specific to the Redskins Tannehill has experience with the both the verbiage and the concepts of this offense because he played in a variant of this offense under Mike Sherman.
So Tannehill already has some conceptual understanding of this offense and has experience executing the rhythm passing elements (scripted footwork linked with route combinations and timing) and knows how to execute the staple boot-action passing elements of the offense.

[zeesson]

I can't believe we are even having this discussion.