Man, all you do is tailor your arguments for what the Dolphins do.
Obviously nobody knows FOR SURE what kind of a professional that a prospect will turn into, but (again obviously) you have to base prospects off of their collegiate performance and take the best one available. There is not an NCAAFB talent evaluator in the country who would have ranked Tannehill over Barkley in this year's draft, and barring something catastrophic like a bad injury or a terribly unforseen drop off in performance Barkley will be competing for the Heisman trophy and the #1 overall pick next year.
Has nothing to do with what the Dolphins did. It is common sense and
HISTORY that proves taking a quarterback in the first round in back to back years never really happens. Like I said it happened once in the 80s(because the first QB was suspended for his second season) and then the next case was in the early 60s. A catasrophic injury, something like a career ending injury, sure there is the exception for taking another QB in the first round. Since that probably won't happen, I don't think there is any justifying taking another 1st round quarterback. I am sure there are some talent evaluators who would rank Tannehill ahead of him, just like there were some that ranked Tannehill ahead of RGIII. Not saying that the majority did, but some did. If you take another first round quarterback, it isn't creating competition at the position, you are basically kicking Tannehill out the door, therefore have
WASTED a first round pick. Do you kick Barkley out the door in 2014 if there is a better QB on the board in the following draft? Then kick that guy out in 2015, and so on?
Good for him that he might win the Heisman Trophy. Tim Tebow won the Heisman also.
Let's say next year Tannehill plays poorly in limited work and we ARE in position to draft Barkley but we pass on him. Tannehill goes on to be a bust and Barkley goes on to be a top 5 QB in the league. Would it still have been a mistake to draft a QB two years in a row?
Let's say that we do end up drafting both Tannehill and Barkley and they both end up being very good like Rivers and Brees were in San Diego. Is that a bad problem to have?
My point is that this is a quarterback league, if you don't have a quarterback you don't have anything. I would much rather take the risk of having two good quarterbacks than taking the risk of passing on a potential great one.
So what if he struggles in a short window this season? Matthew Stafford sucked his first season, didn't do anything of note in his second season but became a stud in year three. They drafted Tannehill based on potential and his tools and project him as a starting QB in the NFL. He is probably the most raw QB that was taken in the first round and needs time to develop. A couple of games in his rookie season is not enough to make a final determination on him.
What if Tannehill becomes a star and Barkley is a bust? How do you justify taking a second first round QB who was a bust and not using that pick on a weapon for Tannehill? We don't know how either will turn out in the pros but you can't waste a pick so soon because you are afraid. They made a commitment to Tannehill, and it is their responsibility to make sure he is put in a position and given the proper weapons to make sure he succeeds.
You can't even compare the Brees and Rivers situation to this. Brees(a second round pick) was already with the Chargers for three seasons and had career stats of 29 touchdowns and 31 interceptions. So yeah, after three years of mediocre play it is justified to start looking at other options. You are talking about adding Barkley before Tannehill even enters his first training camp.
