Baldinger: Tannehill as a franchise QB is a pipe dream | Page 6 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Baldinger: Tannehill as a franchise QB is a pipe dream

How did you get game tape? Real game isnt availabe to anyone other than the team. Not even the media have availablity to the game tapes.
Casas9425 said:
Watch some game tape of the two and you'll notice it is not speculation. One guy knows where to go with the football (Barkley) and one guy doesn't (Tannehill).
Click to expand...
 
Casas9425 said:
I meant watch the games.
Click to expand...

it's still tape...i don't know why people here think its not...the only thing you don't have is the birds eye view and the endzone view of every play on the field...and now the leagues getting ready to release all 22 to the public which means access to exactly what the staff sees...

you can get plenty out of watching a game broadcast if you know what you're looking at...plenty...at any position on the field...safety being the one that is most difficult...
 
Nublar7 said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm not basing my argument on what history indicates we WILL do, I'm basing my argument on what I think we SHOULD do if we're in the position to take Barkley next year. If Barkley bombs and Tannehill is great then we'll still end up with a great quarterback, there won't be a problem either way. Like I said, I'd much rather run the risk of having two good QBs or having one succeed out of the two than being stuck with just Tannehill if he isn't any good.
Again, this is my opinion, but I don't see what the big deal is about Tannehill and I never have, but I like Barkley a lot. You can't guarantee yourself a great player when you draft somebody, but you can set your team up with the best prospects possible. I happen to think that Barkley is a much better prospect than Tanny.
 
insomnia411 said:
I'm not basing my argument on what history indicates we WILL do, I'm basing my argument on what I think we SHOULD do if we're in the position to take Barkley next year. If Barkley bombs and Tannehill is great then we'll still end up with a great quarterback, there won't be a problem either way. Like I said, I'd much rather run the risk of having two good QBs or having one succeed out of the two than being stuck with just Tannehill if he isn't any good.
Again, this is my opinion, but I don't see what the big deal is about Tannehill and I never have, but I like Barkley a lot. You can't guarantee yourself a great player when you draft somebody, but you can set your team up with the best prospects possible. I happen to think that Barkley is a much better prospect than Tanny.
Click to expand...

I understand your point of view, I really do. In a perfect world you would love to have two franchise quarterbacks on the roster and be able to choose between them. However in the real world and how front offices build teams, taking a quarterback in the first round two years in a row just doesn't happen. I also don't expect it to happen next year. They will draft players to assist Tannehill's growth and development not someone who might replace him. Ireland and Philbin's future with the team is tied to the success or failure of Tannehill, just like Parcells and Sparano's fate were tied to Henne's success and failure. If they pick Barkley or any other QB in the first round next year, they are basically telling Ross "We made a mistake, fire us." But again, even if Tannehill doesn't play or struggles in his limited action this season, it doesn't mean he is a bust. Typical rule is three years before making a true determination on whether a draft pick has it or doesn't. Hell, it took Soliai to his fourth season before he went from potential training camp cut to a Pro Bowl nose tackle.
 
Nublar7 said:
So it was a shot at me. :rolleyes2:

Care to explain yourself? Of course maybe I am still misunderstanding who this was directed at.
Click to expand...

Chill buddy. I thought it would be clear in who I quoted in the reply. I'll spell it out in order to clear the air.

You're known as one of the more knowledgeable posters here. Someone with a clear understanding of the game. I found it friggin’ hilarious that a name I don’t even recognize would assume that you hadn’t already watched the tape. More to the point, one can usually assume that you’ve watched more than the ESPN replay but the actual game tape. Maybe you haven’t but still… I found it pretty damn funny just the same.

We cool bro? :brewskis:
 
hooshoops said:
really depends on if irelands here or not...if he is i'd say zero chance...if he's not and tanny plays this year and looks horrid i'd say odds go up...we could eat cutting tanny next year under this new cba and still use our top pick on a qb no problem cap wise...no problem...in the old cba you'd be paying for that for at least 2 more years...not to mention the difference in the guaranteed money
Click to expand...
I agree with the CBA playing a huge difference. To me, the only way were sniffing Barkley is with a top 3 pick. Now I love Tanny and Im really excited about his potential and tools...that said Ill take Barkley all day. The CBA has changed the trade value as well...unless it is a pre-draft trade like the Redskins...the compensation just isn't there. Look at what Dallas did in the 1st. The only way Id pass up Barkley is if Tanny showed promise and we can pull in a huge haul for the pick. I think this will be all for naught though...this defense is too good to be that bad...and I have an inkling that Tanny shows up when he is called upon later in the year.
 
sm0kinfins said:
Chill buddy. I thought it would be clear in who I quoted in the reply. I'll spell it out in order to clear the air.

You're known as one of the more knowledgeable posters here. Someone with a clear understanding of the game. I found it friggin’ hilarious that a name I don’t even recognize would assume that you hadn’t already watched the tape. More to the point, one can usually assume that you’ve watched more than the ESPN replay but the actual game tape. Maybe you haven’t but still… I found it pretty damn funny just the same.

We cool bro? :brewskis:
Click to expand...
Yeah, we are cool. I just read your initial post the wrong way and wasn't 100% sure what you meant. I thought that is what you meant, sorry if I seemed defensive, didn't mean it like that.

I do appreciate the kind words.
 
Casas9425 said:
Watch some game tape of the two and you'll notice it is not speculation. One guy knows where to go with the football (Barkley) and one guy doesn't (Tannehill).
Click to expand...

Since you opened this can of worms up with your comment, answer me these three simple questions -

1) How'd you get access to tape on both Barkely and Tannehill? Where did you get it from?
2) What are you looking for when deciding what makes a quarterback better? I'd really like to know you list of criteria. A check-list, if you will.
3) What are the sample sizes that you're going off of and what are the sample sizes you'd PREFER to go off of?

edit: I see this was already addressed. You meant watch the games. Fair enough.

hooshoops said:
it's still tape...i don't know why people here think its not...the only thing you don't have is the birds eye view and the endzone view of every play on the field...and now the leagues getting ready to release all 22 to the public which means access to exactly what the staff sees...

you can get plenty out of watching a game broadcast if you know what you're looking at...plenty...at any position on the field...safety being the one that is most difficult...
Click to expand...

No, no it's not. Have you ever seen coaches tape? I have, and I can tell you that it's much different. MUCH different. Seeing "almost the whole field" isn't seeing the whole field, because you flat out do not see the safeties (as you already said, well done) and those are pretty important to the development of a quarterback.

Just food for thought... if it was SO similar, why on earth would pundits and draftniks like you and I be champing at the bit to get our hands on it? I think the answer alone tells you that it's truly different.
 
I came across this thread and I thought it was perfect. A lot of what is being said in this thread was also being said in the following thread from 2006. The quarterback being criticised in the 2006 thread was Aaron Rodgers.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=239762

The title of the thread is "Aaron Rodgers = Bust?". Though at least these fans waited until after his rookie season, where some are not even giving Tannehill a chance to attend his first training camp. They ask if Rodgers is a bust, some say he would be in NFL Europe within a year and that Ingle Martin is a better prospect. They also think the Packers were so upset with Rodgers slow development that they tried to trade him prior to the 2006 draft. They even question why they didn't take Leinart or Young in the draft.

There is speculation in that thread that the Packers would draft Quinn in 2007. One person said he would rather have Vince Young than Rodgers. Near the end of the thread there is even more talk about sending Rodgers to NFL Europe.

Of course there are some level headed fans saying you need to give Rodgers more than one year to develop before declaring him a bust or that they should look at other options. Some of those fans are being blasted.
 
Dan Silly O is an idiot, he got fired in Tampa for calling the players there monkeys and now he is the Sid Rosenberg coke head replacement. I make it a point not to listen to QAM at all. Joe Rose has hyperventilation syndrome and is a wierdo, Mike Irvin garbles and you can understand what he is saying
 
baldy should play with his pinky and not worry about dolphins. He is a joke. Him and stink of espn are 2 of the worst analyists in the game. That said I wanted Barkley so bad and was really hoping he would come out for this past draft. Still want him.
 
New Dolphins fan who has to say that I would not drafted Tannehill. If we had to go for a QB I would have gone for Weeden. For me, Kuechley would have been the pick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom