gregorygrant83
Club Member
You have to take this kind of historical info with a grain of salt. While it's true that only a small # of Qb's drafted outside of the first round have become good starters, that doesn't mean Chad Henne would have been a better quarterback if he were taken late in the first round or Aaron Rogers would have failed had he slipped to the second round.
It's like people saying RGIII won't be successful because Big 12 QB's don't have a history of success. By that logic if Andrew Luck had elected to go to Texas and RGIII choose UCLA it would make RGIII the better prospect regardless of their skill set.
If you think Tannehill is a first round talent you take him. But you don't want to take him in the top 10 if you really think he's a second or third round talent, but worry second round qb's fail or you're afraid someone else might overvalue him.
It's like people saying RGIII won't be successful because Big 12 QB's don't have a history of success. By that logic if Andrew Luck had elected to go to Texas and RGIII choose UCLA it would make RGIII the better prospect regardless of their skill set.
If you think Tannehill is a first round talent you take him. But you don't want to take him in the top 10 if you really think he's a second or third round talent, but worry second round qb's fail or you're afraid someone else might overvalue him.