Maddog69 Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Nothing is "wrong" with him necessarily. I just think we can do better. If you are looking to replace Fitz at the #10 overall, doing so with Gabbert/Ponder/Tannehill/etc isnt much of a step up, IMO. If we are going to spend a top-10 pick on a QB, he better be a sure thing, franchise QB. We have too many big-need holes to fill and cant afford another miss in the 1st round. Nobody they pick is going to be a sure thing. The draft is littered with busts at each and every position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Nobody they pick is going to be a sure thing. The draft is littered with busts at each and every position. Of course, but you can greatly reduce your risk. Dareus was a "sure thing" last year, so was AJ Green. I feel Upshaw is as well. Also Blackmon. There are a number of players that are far less risky. Luck and RG3 are low risk. A mid-level QB at #10 is a HUGE risk. Much too risky for a team that needs to hit on most of its picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Tannehil led his team as the #1 WR for two years before becoming the QB.....so he could be the backup QB and our starting #2 WR.....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Tannehil led his team as the #1 WR for two years before becoming the QB.....so he could be the backup QB and our starting #2 WR.....lol Perfect replacement for Brad Smith! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Gil Brandt thinks Tannehill will go in the top 10. Would you be mad if the Bills took him and let him sit behind Fitz for a couple years? Yes I would because Tannehil isn't worth a second round pick period !! We can get a lot more bang for our buck in a later round that we can let sit just as long as it would take Tannehil to be ready .. With the like of Moore , Osweiler , & Weeden possibly going in the later rounds i think it would be a better pick for us . Plus the later of the 2 have better skill set & experience along with it being possible a better upside it would be much smarter to wait & draft to beef up the D first as it is a priority !! Please don't draft Tannehil that high !!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Of course, but you can greatly reduce your risk. Dareus was a "sure thing" last year, so was AJ Green. I feel Upshaw is as well. Also Blackmon. There are a number of players that are far less risky. Luck and RG3 are low risk. A mid-level QB at #10 is a HUGE risk. Much too risky for a team that needs to hit on most of its picks. this is strictly your opinion. None of these guys are guaranteed to be successful. And before we jump the gun, Dareus has performed decently so far, but he is far from the dominant player you would want from a #3 overall pick. Luck and Rg3 are not low risk either. Until they prove otherwise, they have just as much chance of being a bust as anyone else. The draft is a massive crap shoot. Every year, these "low risk" guys get drafted early and do nothing while other more risky players get taken later on and become great. Any argument to the contrary is absolutely untrue. You have no way of knowing which of these guys are guaranteed to succeed. Yes I would because Tannehil isn't worth a second round pick period !! We can get a lot more bang for our buck in a later round that we can let sit just as long as it would take Tannehil to be ready .. With the like of Moore , Osweiler , & Weeden possibly going in the later rounds i think it would be a better pick for us . Plus the later of the 2 have better skill set & experience along with it being possible a better upside it would be much smarter to wait & draft to beef up the D first as it is a priority !! Please don't draft Tannehil that high !!!!!!! If you let Weeden sit for two years before playing him he will be 31yrs old before his first start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloaggie Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Perfect replacement for Brad Smith! True, he would be a step up from Brad Smith. But not worth a first rounder. Tannehill led the team in receptions, but he was not their #1 receiver. That was Jeff Fuller, who had injury issues at A&M. If not for those injuries, he'd be talked about as a first round pick. He might be someone to look at in round 2 or 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 this is strictly your opinion. None of these guys are guaranteed to be successful. And before we jump the gun, Dareus has performed decently so far, but he is far from the dominant player you would want from a #3 overall pick. Luck and Rg3 are not low risk either. Until they prove otherwise, they have just as much chance of being a bust as anyone else. The draft is a massive crap shoot. Every year, these "low risk" guys get drafted early and do nothing while other more risky players get taken later on and become great. Any argument to the contrary is absolutely untrue. You have no way of knowing which of these guys are guaranteed to succeed. This is true, which is why I have quotes around "sure thing", and talk about high risk vs low risk. No one is making guarantees. But you can certainly make better/educated decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 :lol: yeah I'm a late sleeper. I was starting to get worried That said Tannehill could very easily go top 10. After the Colts take Luck the Browns, Redskins, Dolphins, and possibly the Bucs and Jags may look qb. With only Griffin up there you could easily see a reach. Locker going 8 and Ponder (I believe) 12 was way ahead of where most projections had them. It appears Tannehill is the clear cut 3rd rated qb (Mayock, Brandt, and mcshay) so hopefully a team reaches on him and you are wrong about him barbarian Will I be mad if the Bills take him? Depends on who is on the board when the Bills are on the clock but more than likely yes. Only Luck and rg3 @ QB to me are worthy of the Bills selection (and both will be long gone before it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I have a problem with him agreeing to move to the receiver position in his first two years at college. I don't mean to be harsh, but that doesn't sound like first round QB material who's destined for NFL greatness. Being a QB should be part of your DNA. No way would I take him in the first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#34fan Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Gil Brandt thinks Tannehill will go in the top 10. Would you be mad if the Bills took him and let him sit behind Fitz for a couple years? I feel sorry for any team that takes Tanneyhill in the first rd. IMO, he embodies why the league needed a rookie salary cap in the first place. Can you say BUST? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBuff423 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Simple answer: YES!!! Defense needs so much more improvement after the really poor job the previous regime did with getting Defensive talent at OBD and I agree with many other posters, if you're going to spend a 1st round pick, much less a top 10 pick the talent level should be through the roof...and the only guy I like that much is Luck, otherwise history has shown us that you can get a great QB in other rounds, such as 2 or 3 or even in the rare case, later....ala Brady and Romo (UDFA)...furthermore, I would love to see Nix go after a GREAT DE/OLB in FA and WR as well alleviating some of the pressure to draft a guy who's going to cure "all our ills" at WR and on Defense....getting a few really good FAs on the Defense and ONE really important WR would go a long way in making the first two draft picks this year and the last two years worth of Draft picks look exceptional by simply surrounding all the existing players with very good talent....then, based upon Fitz's next year's performance or drafting a good QB in the 3rd round this year or even 4th round, maybe next year can be the year to draft the future "Franchise" QB.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Alex Smith while having the best year out of seven, put zero fear into opposing defenses for the most part this year. His passing stats are pedestrian at best. He was something like 4 for 8 in the first half Sunday. The announcers even commented on it. His season maybe just an anomaly. After watching him in the NFC championship is he the guy you would trust too take the Bills to the super bowl? Nope Not s single person in the bay area wearing niners gear this week. The injury report isn't an excuse either. All teams are playing with injured players. he rarely looked past his first reads Sunday. he was a big reason they lost. Your not going to hoist the Lombardi with quarterbacks like him or ours. True but T-hill has more talent then them and will be a franchise QB. Mad? Shocked and appalled would probably be a more appropriate description. Tannehill is talented, but he is raw and still needs time to learn how to be an NFL QB. While he possesses all the physical attributes needed to be successful, I seriously question the "mental aspect" of his skill set. With all of our needs this offseason, we can't afford to use the #10 pick on a guys who is going to sit on the bench. Some teams have that luxury, IMO we do not at this time. I'd prefer we hold off and take a developmental QB like Nick Foles in the 4th round. Just because we aren't great doesn't mean we don't have the time, if we want to be good we need to be patient and drafting a potential Fran QB is better than drafting a potential good QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 No running game? They had one, and should have had two 1000 yard runners (Gray and Michael), if it hadn't been for injuries. Tannehill benefitted from a very balanced attack. In A&M's game against Texas and the bowl game against Northwestern, they had to go with their 3rd string RB exclusively, because another RB dropped from the team. Tannehill actually regressed from the previous season. He played almost flawlessly in 2010, up until he faced LSU in the Cotton Bowl, when he threw 3 or 4 INTs. This year he had three games with three INTs. and the Bills would only compound that mistake by using their #1 on Tannehill, who would mirror Fitz's play. That's the point should have but didn't and the attack became very unbalanced. It was almost as sad as watching us sling the ball all the field when we should have run it, However A&M couldn't. And again his regression came from carrying the team, not that he some how magically started sucking. Listen I don't think he is perfect and needs work but he has all the skills necessary to be that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I was starting to get worried That said Tannehill could very easily go top 10. After the Colts take Luck the Browns, Redskins, Dolphins, and possibly the Bucs and Jags may look qb. With only Griffin up there you could easily see a reach. Locker going 8 and Ponder (I believe) 12 was way ahead of where most projections had them. It appears Tannehill is the clear cut 3rd rated qb (Mayock, Brandt, and mcshay) so hopefully a team reaches on him and you are wrong about him barbarian Will I be mad if the Bills take him? Depends on who is on the board when the Bills are on the clock but more than likely yes. Only Luck and rg3 @ QB to me are worthy of the Bills selection (and both will be long gone before it) Well I hope I'm right and we take him but if the fins take him I hope I'm wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Well I hope I'm right and we take him but if the fins take him I hope I'm wrong I think we reached this conclusion in another thread and I will 100% agree with that assessment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 First off, the Dolphins we established in 1967, not 1960. Secondly, if you are going back to 1960 then go all the way back. The Bills had Jack Kemp and the Patriots had Babe Parilli who in their day were both "franchise" QBs. That said, youor argument that franchise QBs don't come along every day is correct. Of course, franchise QBs don't have to be taken in the 1st round. Neither Brady nor Griese were taken that high, but they made your list. The list of QBs taken in the first round is much higher that franchise QBs. I do not consider either Jack Kemp or Babe Parilli to have been franchise QBs. Jack Kemp threw for 114 TDs and 183 INTs: not a franchise QB ratio even by the standards of the '60s. He averaged only 6.9 yards per attempt, and completed 46.7% of his passes. I realize he played in a different era, but those are not franchise stats even after taking that into account. Babe Parilli averaged just 6.8 yards per attempt, completed 46.6% of his passes, and had more INTs than TDs. I'm not the world's biggest fan of QB rating, especially not when comparing QBs from different eras. Even so, it's still worth mentioning that for their respective careers, Parilli had a QB rating of 59.6, Kemp a QB rating of 57.3, and Kelly Holcomb a QB rating of 79.2. I respect your opinion on Fitz' ability, while I believe he needs one more year for us to determine whether he's good or not. But... Once every 250 years? How was that stat developed, and by whom? The Super Bowl has been in existence for only 40 years. I can think of several QBs in recent years who I wouldn't consider "franchised" having won the Big Game--Hostetler, Rypien and Dilfer. Fitz is a franchise QB. He was given a six-year extension. The average tenure of an NFL QB is 4.44 years, according to the NFL. So, I'd say he is a franchise QB. Whether or not he's a good one is up for debate. My earlier statement was that if you are a team without a franchise QB, you should expect to win the Super Bowl once every 250 years. (As an aside, I am using the term "franchise QB" to mean a QB at or near the level of Brady, the Mannings, etc. Fitzpatrick isn't that, regardless of how much money he's been paid.) There are typically about eight teams with franchise QBs at any one time. Of the last 10 Super Bowls, nine have been won by teams with franchise QBs. This means that 90% of Super Bowl wins are being distributed among those eight teams, with the remaining 10% being distributed among the 24 teams without franchise QBs. 10% chance of the Super Bowl being won by a team without a franchise QB * (1/24) = one Super Bowl win every 240 years for each team without a franchise QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I hope tannehill goes in the top 10, because it'll push another very good player down to our spot in round 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I guess I could get behind it in the 2nd but I still think this would be complete settling in the 1st. IT would be Losman part deux, taking a guy for the sake of taking a guy. The guy who Tannehill took over for, Jerrod Johnson, actually had a better season in 2009 than Tannehill did this year and he wasn't even drafted. http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/14275/type/college/jerrod-johnson IMO, that means it was a very QB friendly and a lot of guys could look good in the offense (see ND - Quinn and Clausen). Additionally, he has 2 pro receiver he threw to - Fuller (who could be a steal in the 3rd) and Swope (who reeks of Wes Welker). IMO, you only take a QB in the 1st if you are convinced they are a franchise guy. Tannehill never struck me as that type of player. Also, if you draft a QB past the 1st, you look for upside. Brock Osweiler in the 3rd or later is that guy for me. I guess I'd have to trsut Gailey but Tannehill in the 1st would make me ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I want to solidify the OL before we draft a "franchise QB" this way if the franchise QB doesnt live up to expectations, we wont be able to blame it on the OL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts