For anybody to say that Tannehill is anywhere near the prospect of a Barkley is ridiculous, and those people are clearly seeing the world thru aqua and orange colored glasses. Right now, Barkley is the best college prospect going into the 2012 season, Tannehill was never considered anywhere near that elite status by anyone... Except for apparently one guy, Mr. Ireland. Barkley is basically better than Tannehill in every single capacity except for athleticism (last time I checked Tom Brady was not a very mobile guy) and in arm strength, but it's not like Barkley has a weak arm at all.
If Matt Barkley came out this year, the absolute furthest he would have fallen is #4 to Cleveland. The chances are that many teams would have liked him better than RG3 because of Barkley's experience in an NFL offense, and both the Rams and Vikings would have pulled in huge hauls for those players at #2 and #3.
Put it like this : Hypothetically, if Barkley came out and we chose to stand pat with Tannehill instead of trading up to #3 for Barkley or RG3 (we would probably have to give up one less 1st rounder than Washington did for RG3) that probably would have been the final straw for me as a Fish fan. Barkley IMO is a cut under Luck and a cut above Stafford as a prospect. Love the kid, and it wouldn't be tragic at all if we went 2-14 this year, had a fire sale and finally drafted a real QB. In today's NFL, you don't have a QB, you don't have ****.
I was listening to Colin Cowherd one day (I think it was before the draft) and he was talking about Barkley. Keep in mind Cowherd watches every USC game, and he said that he doesn't know what to make of Barkley at the pro level. He said that he thinks Barkley is surrounded by some of the best wide receiver talent he has ever seen, and that there is nothing outstanding about Barkley physically. He is not big, he has average arm strength, and he is not very athletic. He insinuated that he doesn't believe that he is a lock to be a great pro, and I tend to agree with him.