Tannehill versus Wilson: Did we draft the right quarterback?

[Vaark]

Yes, looking backwards through the rear view mirror, Wilson seems to possess all the qualities you'd want in a QB and leader outside of height and IMO would go before even Luck in the draft. However it's all still mental masturbation if you embrace the collective "wisdom" of our FH members - many of whom now with short memory of the side they were on in a raging ongoing debate.

It really wasn't all that long ago during the frustration accruing from the Beck and then Henne tenures that many FH'ers, (including I'm sure some who now wish we'd have drafted Wilson with a 2nd) were advocating drafting our next QB in the first round, In support of that they presented all sorts of research confirming that these first rounders, especially early first rounders historically portended the greatest probability of success. (Not "certainty" though, for anyone who wants to dredge up all the failures like JaMarcus). I recall that Marino as our last 1st round drafted QB was a recurring argument - but so were the percentage of QBs who thrived longest in the league and those whose teams made it into the playoffs and SBs.

While those studies were by no means conclusive, they actually were persuasive in fortifying the wisdom of drafting our QBs in the first round, and as early as possible.

Well, guess what? We did exactly that! We drafted a promising young QB with all the measurables, moldability (as Optimum Draft Scouts described) and upside when&where we could have grabbed him - especially considering the scuttlebutt that he wouldn't have lasted past KC's 12th pick. So what we did was exactly correct. It does Tannehill a disservice to second-guess with the "wouldas" and "shouldas" since according to most of those studies coupled with Wilson's height, he's proving to be a surprising anomaly but certainly not the rule when it comes to short QBs - or those drafted later than the first round.

I remember a few of the folks who were adamantly championing the drafting a first rounder - using Melty Ice as a the latest example (and not just the obvious members either) ; not surprisingly now with the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight, some are singing a different tune. Go figure. :idk:

 

[rent this space]

Yes, looking backwards through the rear view mirror, Wilson seems to possess all the qualities you'd want in a QB and leader outside of height and IMO would go before even Luck in the draft. However it's all still mental masturbation if you embrace the collective "wisdom" of our FH members - many of whom now with short memory of the side they were on in a raging ongoing debate.

It really wasn't all that long ago during the frustration accruing from the Beck and then Henne tenures that many FH'ers, (including I'm sure some who now wish we'd have drafted Wilson with a 2nd) were advocating drafting our next QB in the first round, In support of that they presented all sorts of research confirming that these first rounders, especially early first rounders historically portended the greatest probability of success. (Not "certainty" though, for anyone who wants to dredge up all the failures like JaMarcus). I recall that Marino as our last 1st round drafted QB was a recurring argument - but so were the percentage of QBs who thrived longest in the league and those whose teams made it into the playoffs and SBs.

While those studies were by no means conclusive, they actually were persuasive in fortifying the wisdom of drafting our QBs in the first round, and as early as possible.

Well, guess what? We did exactly that! We drafted a promising young QB with all the measurables, moldability (as Optimum Draft Scouts described) and upside when&where we could have grabbed him - especially considering the scuttlebutt that he wouldn't have lasted past KC's 12th pick. So what we did was exactly correct. It does Tannehill a disservice to second-guess with the "wouldas" and "shouldas" since according to most of those studies coupled with Wilson's height, he's proving to be a surprising anomaly but certainly not the rule when it comes to short QBs - or those drafted later than the first round.

I remember a few of the folks who were adamantly championing the drafting a first rounder - using Melty Ice as a the latest example (and not just the obvious members either) ; not surprisingly now with the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight, some are singing a different tune. Go figure. :idk:

Don't forget the Seahawks were in the Tannehill conversation. They actually had dinner with the Dolphins and Tannehill pre-draft. There is no doubt if the Dolphins and Chiefs passed on RT, Seattle would have scooped him up.
I remember when asked about picking Tom Brady in the 6th round, Bill Belichick said something like "I'm no genius, I missed on Tom Brady five times..."

 

[nyjunc]

Don't forget the Seahawks were in the Tannehill conversation. They actually had dinner with the Dolphins and Tannehill pre-draft. There is no doubt if the Dolphins and Chiefs passed on RT, Seattle would have scooped him up.
I remember when asked about picking Tom Brady in the 6th round, Bill Belichick said something like "I'm no genius, I missed on Tom Brady five times..."

No doubt? there's no way they take a QB 1st rd after signing Flynn to that deal.

 

[nyashfan]

You are also 100% correct. Wilson is getting great coaching and playing out of his mind. No debate.

However, the OP's question was whether the Dolphins made a mistake by drafting Tannehill at #8. My answer is absolutely not. I'm not 100% convinced that Luck will end up being a better player than Tannehill.

This type of thread belongs on a Washington Redskins message board -- RG3 vs. Wilson: Did we draft the right QB? Especially when it has been reported that Shanahan wanted to stay put and draft Tannehill at #6, only to be overruled by the owner.

You are correct again. However, it does not dilute Seattle's skill in correctly evaluating Wilson's talent/upside potential and ignoring the maxim that QB's have too be over 6' tall (preferably over 6'3") to play in the NFL. The Seattle GM made a good call in being prepared to give Wilson a chance and every other GM had that same opportunity (Jacksonville, New York Jets, Cleveland, Minnesota, Buffalo, Tampa Bay and other teams would now love to have made that call). The fact that he had an each way bet, Flynn vs Wilson, doesn't negate the significance of getting a very good QB in the third round.

 

[Vaark]

No doubt? there's no way they take a QB 1st rd after signing Flynn to that deal.

April articles - among many others after Flynn was signed

Eagles, Chiefs jump into the Tannehill tourney
Posted by Mike Florio on April 2, 2012, 8:00 AM EST
136295761_crop_650x440 Getty Images

With quarterbacks Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III already spoken for (barring an incredibly unlikely and unforeseen development), the top remaining quarterback on the board is Ryan Tannehill.

With the Browns (at No. 4) and the Dolphins (at No. 8) and the Seahawks (at No. 12) all apparently very interested in the converted receover whom Greg Cosell believes is more accurate on the run than Luck or Griffin, Peter King of SI.com points out in his brand-new MMQB column that the Eagles and Chiefs will each put Tannehill through a private workout.

Both already appeared on our visits and workouts tracker, but the dates hadn’t been set. Per King, the Eagles will check out Tannehill on Monday, and he’ll work out for the Chiefs later in the week.

So what does it mean? Based on history, it’s hard to say. This is the time for smokescreens and misdirections, with teams talking up players they don’t like (in the hopes someone higher in the order will take them) and saying bad things about players they hope will slip down the board.

But both the Chiefs (at No. 11) and the Eagles (at No. 15) were interested in Peyton Manning, Kansas City admittedly and Philly reportedly. And so each team has to at least be contemplating the possibility of making a move up to land a new quarterback.

The question is how high will they need to go? With the Browns believed to be interested at No. 4, the safest strategy would be to move to No. 3, which would duplicate the 1-2-3 quarterback class of 1999, when Tim Couch, Donovan McNabb, and Akili Smith came off the board in back-to-back-to-back fashion.

Seahawks' Interest In Ryan Tannehill Could Benefit Chiefs

By Joel Thorman @JoelThorman on Apr 16 2012, 9:45a 38
AUSTIN TX - NOVEMBER 25: Quarterback Ryan Tannehill #17 of Texas A&M during the game against University of Texas in the first half at Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium on November 25 2010 in Austin Texas. (Photo by Darren Carroll/Getty Images)
It's that time of year when you have to question everything that's written about the NFL draft. Does this team really like that receiver? Would that team really trade up for that quarterback? Where is this team's interest in an offensive lineman coming from?

Lots of random "This team is interested in this player" type of stuff coming out. In Kansas City, a lot of the talk has been about the Chiefs and a quarterback, specifically Ryan Tannehill.
Peter King of SI.com predicts the Chiefs will NOT draft Tannehill if he's there at 11, despite the quarterback talk in Kansas City this offseason.

In the unlikely event Tannehill makes it out of the top 10, I believe he'll be the 11th overall pick. That spot belongs to the Chiefs. I don't see the Chiefs taking Tannehill. I see Kansas City taking the best offer for the pick, and there will certainly be offers for that pick if Tannehill slips. Still, the most likely scenarios are Tannehill to Cleveland at four or Miami at eight. But why 11? Because teams around the league know how much Seattle loves Tannehill.

Apparently, the Seahawks really, really like Tannehill. To the point where they're willing to draft him despite spending $8+ million per year on Matt Flynn in free agency.

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2012/4/16/2951960/seahawks-ryan-tannehill-kansas-city-chiefs

 

[rent this space]

No doubt? there's no way they take a QB 1st rd after signing Flynn to that deal.

That was essentially a one year deal, remember Tannehill wasn't supposed to start right away.
And yes, no doubt Tannehill was going no lower than 12

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/04/22/mmqb/

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...wks-pete-carroll-a-huge-fan-of-ryan-tannehill

http://seattle.sbnation.com/seattle...-ryan-tannehill-go-to-the-seahawks-in-the-top

 

[jvw]

I think I missed read this thread, let me be clear on my position....We drafted the correct QB using the information we had available at the time, RT was the right pick.....with that being said Wilson turned out to be a better QB at this time....do I think RT can get to that level? I think he can but it won't happen overnight....

 

[DANTODUPER]

We shouldn't be comparing anything.

Wilson plays in a offense that plays to his strengths, he's not asked to do much but hit wide open guys after a PA fake.

Actually the RIGHT QB for our system should have been Nick Foles, not Wilson. But if you compare all the QB of that draft class only by their numbers I'll said 1. Foles, 2. Wilson, 3. Luck, 4. Tannehill, 5. Griffin, 6. Weeden. But it is not fair because Wilson and Foles had better talent around them. I do believe Foles will end being the better one when judging only the statistics, he is a TD machine and has all the tools. I think Wilson is an incredible athlete but not an incredible QB. Foles and Luck seem to be the better QB's. Tannehill and Griffin still have some upside. Hopefully Tannehill still improves a LOT and becomes one of the best of the bunch!!!

 

[nyjunc]

That was essentially a one year deal, remember Tannehill wasn't supposed to start right away.
And yes, no doubt Tannehill was going no lower than 12

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/04/22/mmqb/

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...wks-pete-carroll-a-huge-fan-of-ryan-tannehill

http://seattle.sbnation.com/seattle...-ryan-tannehill-go-to-the-seahawks-in-the-top

Thank you for the links but I still have a hard time believing that and why would Seattle make that public?

 

[rent this space]

Thank you for the links but I still have a hard time believing that and why would Seattle make that public?

It's tough to believe anything you hear in April, but this seems bigger than a smokescreen

 

[spiketex]

You are also 100% correct. Wilson is getting great coaching and playing out of his mind. No debate.

However, the OP's question was whether the Dolphins made a mistake by drafting Tannehill at #8. My answer is absolutely not. I'm not 100% convinced that Luck will end up being a better player than Tannehill.

This type of thread belongs on a Washington Redskins message board -- RG3 vs. Wilson: Did we draft the right QB? Especially when it has been reported that Shanahan wanted to stay put and draft Tannehill at #6, only to be overruled by the owner.

I totally agree. I remain bullish with Tannehill as our QB. Time will tell if Wilson is better, but both teams drafted NFL caliber players with very good upside and at least we didn't give up a swag of future draft picks like the Redskins. After so many QB disappointments post Marino, Ireland needed a good draft. 19 months later, I still like the decision and expect RT will continue to improve.

 

[nyjunc]

It's tough to believe anything you hear in April, but this seems bigger than a smokescreen

maybe, I still find it hard to believe but maybe it's true?

 

[jvw]

Actually the RIGHT QB for our system should have been Nick Foles, not Wilson. But if you compare all the QB of that draft class only by their numbers I'll said 1. Foles, 2. Wilson, 3. Luck, 4. Tannehill, 5. Griffin, 6. Weeden. But it is not fair because Wilson and Foles had better talent around them. I do believe Foles will end being the better one when judging only the statistics, he is a TD machine and has all the tools. I think Wilson is an incredible athlete but not an incredible QB. Foles and Luck seem to be the better QB's. Tannehill and Griffin still have some upside. Hopefully Tannehill still improves a LOT and becomes one of the best of the bunch!!!

Can't say I agree with Foles being #1....let's wait until he plays a good D and has a full season under his belt before we move him above Luck and Wilson...at least those two have played in big games and won in there 2nd seasons....I also think RG3andout will be better next yr after a full off season of working to get better instead of rehab but the way he's going he will be hurt again soon, dude takes to many clean shots......

 

[nyjunc]

Can't say I agree with Foles being #1....let's wait until he plays a good D and has a full season under his belt before we move him above Luck and Wilson...at least those two have played in big games and won in there 2nd seasons....I also think RG3andout will be better next yr after a full off season of working to get better instead of rehab but the way he's going he will be hurt again soon, dude takes to many clean shots......

I am fully confident Luck will be great but what big games has he won so far?

 

[Phinatic8u]

Floes reminds me of Colin Kaepernick.

Exploded on the scene, then this year has been about as average as you can be, and averages the lowest YPG Passing in the NfL.

Foles has yet played a good defense, or had to be clutch.