I hated the pick when we made it. Never thought he would amount to anything, 3 years in the league and out, so in a sense he's exceeded my expectations. However I could understand the appeal, the arm talent was clearly there, he was a very smart kid coming out with a great character, his time as a wideout surely would help him get on the same page as his receivers, the ability to throw a good ball on the run and the mobility were there. I remember Gruden interviewing all the QBs in that class for ESPN and Tannehill came over really really well, Gruden was gushing. What I couldn't get past was all the average tape there was on the guy, how his clear talent didn't seem to translate to winning many games at college, he just looked average at that level and I didn't expect him to improve when he went up to another level.
Despite my clear dislike of the guy, I've always been willing to give him a chance to prove himself, and that extends to even this year, which I always thought of as make or break. I'll be the first to admit, I'm far from the best elevator of players for this game, and he's certainly got a lot of people on here in his corner, there must be a reason for that that I've yet to see for myself. But honestly at 30 (31 when he's perhaps likely to throw another ball in anger), he's not likely to reach a level much higher than what we've seen.
In terms of what is a "Franchise" QB, it's a good question, in one sense, you could define it as a player that has the unequivocal support of those within the organisation and is compensated accordingly, in that sense, Tannehill has already made it. I think that's too simplistic though, I think it extends beyond those inside the building out into the fan base and is reflected in a person's record. A career losing record with zero play off appearances coupled with a hugely divided fan base screams loudly that it would be folly to hang all your hopes on this guy, how can you call someone like that the franchise guy ?
