|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
like i said before, Weedon's age doesn't bother me a bit. His age shoudl allow him to have at least an 8 year career, and we haven't had a QB play for us for 8 years since at least Sipe.
I like Osweiler better, personally. Uses his head to either go through reads or look off safeties (I don't know which he was doing), steps up/moves around in pocket well, has strong arm and can hit deep throws even if they weren't often called.
That said, I still don't want to draft a QB in the first three rounds this year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Follow up question: what round would you take him if he was 22/23yo?
Ah, I don't like you DJ because you're now making me think. 
22-year old Weeden is a different animal. He'd still be young enough to tweak some things leading him into his football prime, as opposed to now where the coaches are going to try and tweak him leaving his football prime.
Make them all 22-year old QB's and I think there are 4 effective tier's here:
1) Luck and Griffin
2) Tannehill
3) Weeden
4) The rest
Keeping in mind that I view Tannehill as a guy whose talent is in the 30's range, IF Weeden were 7 years younger I'd put him right behind Tannehill in the 50 range and well-ahead of "The rest."
Quote:
Also: if you'd be in the tough spot of being the Browns GM you would go with McCoy-Wallace again into 2012 as you wouldn't gamble on Tannehill at 4 and wouldn't take Weeden in the top 4 rounds...unless you see another QB in the draft that could compete from day 1, that'd be the consequence of your thoughts, right?
Essentially, yes.
My blueprint is of the tried-and-true variety: Don't reach on players out of need.
We're so void of talent that we absolutely have to hit on our high draft picks. Not doing that is why we're where we are right now. To me, there are two can't-miss guys in this draft: Kalil and Richardson. We already have a left-tackle, and we have no running backs. If we have to hit on our #1 pick, Richardson is the easy choice for me, so yeah, I'm in full-on rebuild mode and I don't see Tannehill as a guy who is value for where we'd have to get him.
Quote:
I'll never understand how someone can say "I would take Tannehill in the 2nd" but wouldn't take him at 4 overall...if you'd take him in the 2nd you obviously think he can be a fracnhise QB and you don't draft another starting caliber player, right? What's the difference between pick 4 and 37 when you know that this QB most probably won't be there at pick 37?
That's a reasonable way to view it.
If you miss on Tannehill, you've blown the #4 pick in the draft when there was a sure-thing sitting that that also fills a need. That's why I wouldn't take him at #4 even if I have a second-round grade on the guy. I also don't feel as though a guy who has to sit for a year or two should ever be taken at #4 in today's NFL, especially when he's the 3rd best QB in the draft.
Quote:
Put yourself in Heckert's shoes....the entire world knows that they don't see a franchise QB in Colt....you have a HC probably begging you to change the QB, so that he doesn't have to gnash his teeth and have "he battled" PCs every sunday again...what do you do? Let Tannehill go at 4 although you like him at 37? Let Weeden go because you like his value in the 3rd/4th better but not in the 2nd?
If I'm in Heck's shoes, I'm sticking by my mantra of building through the draft in a full-on rebuilding mode, so if my idea is to take this slowly and build a team then I'm taking the low-risk/high-reward guys with my highest pick.
I'm gonna say this is a mirthful manner, but this quote from Bellyache "We're building a team, not collecting talent" seems to fly in the face of taking Tannehill so early because drafting him is about drafting talent, not proven production. Wanna build a team? Build it with high picks who have talent and production with no downside. That guy isn't Tannehill or Weeden, it's Richardson or Kalil.
I get your points. They are absolutely valid. The argument "if you think a guy is a franchise QB you take him high no matter what" is a strong one. However, I view Tannehill as a reach because I don't necessarily see a franchise QB. I see franchise talent. There are enough questions and unknowns that keep me away from reaching for the 3rd best QB with the 4th overall pick in the draft, especially when that QB isn't universally viewed as being in the same class as the two guys who went ahead of him. This IMHO isn't a Manning/Roethlisberger/Rivers parallel. Tannehill isn't in the same class as Luck and Griffin, and that makes him a huge reach, and thus a huge gamble and risk for a team that cannot afford to blow another high pick.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 295
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 295 |
Totally agree Toad. Watching Blackmon, I don't want him at four. Showboat, mediocre hands. I like Weeden better watching him, though. Be fine with Richardson, RT or WR at 22, and Weeden at 37.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
It's all based on risk/reward and opportunity cost.. how sure are you that he will be a franchise QB? To take him at #4 you better be real close to the "I absolutely KNOW he will be a franchise QB".. to take at 37 it's more like, "There is a decent chance he will be"..
If you pass up maybe the best running back in a while or the top tier WR or DE to take a QB at 4 and it doesn't work, you missed out on some serious talent, if you take him at 37 and it doesn't work out, you missed out on the 3rd or 4th best player at his position in the draft.. it's all about opportunity cost.
Let me put it another way, if we take Blackmon at 4, who turns into a stud, and a QB at 37 who turns into not much, 2 years from now we still have a stud WR to go with a new QB if we have to take one.. if we take Tannehill at 4 and he doesn't work out, then 2 years from now we still don't have a stud WR to put our new QB on the field with....
There is risk in every pick, but you have to minimize that risk and you absolutely can't afford to wiff at #4...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,557
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,557 |
If I am GM
#4 I take Tannehill
#22 Glenn, Reiff or Martin one should be there
#37 Hill, Jeffery or Wright one will be there
#68 Robert Turbin would be my first choice and Lamichael James my 2nd
#100. WR Broyles
For me that would be the most bang for the buck draft we could have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,824
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,824 |
Quote:
Quote:
His hands are not elite, as he dropped more passes than I was expecting.
Yes, he definitely drops some passes. His biggest knock by far. He also caught 232 over the past two seasons.
Quote:
His route-running isn't as great as I was expecting to see.
Yet he was able to get open short, middle and deep on a consistent basis.
Quote:
Blackmon got by in college based on freakish strength for a receiver without elite size. He breaks a ton of tackles for a receiver, and again, breaks way more tackles than receivers his size.
And that's what I love most about him. I can't remember seeing a WR in college take so many plays that should have been 7 yard gains and turn them into 20-30 yarders. That's why I think he's a perfect fit for our offense.
How does a guy who doesn't run precise routes translate to the WCO, no matter how great the rest of his talents are?
I don't think that he would translate very well, especially the route running part. If a guy rounds off his routes, he can wind up a yard or 2 off from where he is supposed to be ..... and if we ever get to a strong rhythm passing game, that's just not going to work.
I suspect that this is an area that would concern a WCO brain trust greatly.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,477
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,477 |
I just don't see it with Tannehill... Just doesn't do it for me.. Scares me a little. besides, I think he's gonna drop like a rock in the draft....I really think he's gonna be there at 22
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620 |
Quote:
I just don't see it with Tannehill... Just doesn't do it for me.. Scares me a little. besides, I think he's gonna drop like a rock in the draft....I really think he's gonna be there at 22
If the brain trust at Miami passes on him, I hope we do as well. To me, that is a tell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
I wasn't agreeing with Toad, just pointing out that Blackmon get open short, middle, and deep. That's something our receivers don't do and the primary reason they're considered so bad. I don't know how good he was expecting Blackmon's routes to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
The risk/reward argument is a valid one of course and I'm fully aware of the risk involved when selecting a QB...they have the highest bust factor
So much variables when measuring value but I still don't get the argument why that same QB is better value in the 2nd where you draft starters too...sure...a 1st rounder is considered a "safer bet", so I'm all for getting that same QB in the 2nd and not top 10...but that's where position scarcity and thus value comes into play...there simply aren't as many "potential" franchise QBs in any given drafts as there are potential cowbell RBs, WRs etc...just look at the Bills, they drafted RBs high almost every other draft...and their best RB today is an overachieving UDFA...I think RB is the position with the most UDFA or late round starters (and good ones at that)
Keeping it short...risk/reward is def part of the equation, but so should position scarcity and that drives up the price and value of the few QBs with potential
#gmstrong
"Players come along at different points in time" - Ray Farmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,065
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,065 |
I'd rather just take Blackmon at #4....With the caveat that I'd require the Browns to give the St. Louis draft table the middle finger on the way to turning in the card. And no, I'm not still bitter about the RGIII thing. But in all seriousness, the only way I move off of the 4th pick is for a #1. I'd rather have my choice of Blackmon / Richardson than picking up even a future #2 or #3. This team needs offensive playakers and a move to #6 would all but guarantee they miss out on all 4 bluechip prospects in this draft (Luck, RGII, Blackmon, Richardson). I just don't see how that makes sense unless a team is overpaying to move up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I think we'd still get Richardson at #6. TB desperately needs CBs, and they play in a division with Brees, Cam, and Ryan. Or, Colston, SSmith, and Roddy if you prefer to look at the guys Claiborne would match up against.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
I just don't see it with Tannehill... Just doesn't do it for me.. Scares me a little. besides, I think he's gonna drop like a rock in the draft....I really think he's gonna be there at 22
Couldn't of said it better myself. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING Tannehill has done in college has impressed me enough to make him a 1st rd selection. Whether it is at #4 or #22. If miami doesn't take him at 8, I can see him dropping to the 2nd round very easily.
I would much rather.pick up Osweiler, cousins, or Kellum Moore with a 3rd round pick. Don't care for weeden at all. I think Weeden and Tannehill are more of a product of the system and poor Big12 defenses then actual talent. It's not like Tannehill had great success at Texas A&M (He went .500%??? win %). I personally think that if this kid wasn't such a great athlete he would never be even considered a QB in the NFL.
The major question in my mind and for Mourg and all the Tannehill lovers... If this kid is such a great QB talent, then why did it take so long for the A&M staff to switch him to QB? They recruited him as a QB, I just feel like he was placed in as default. And besides if it wasn't for Tweedle dee and tweedle dumb(Keiper/Mcshay) I really don't think Tannehill would be in any of our conversations.
PS. If the our head coach didn't go to his proday... i seriously doubt if we would pick him at #4. If we were to pick a QB at 4 i'm sure that he would want to see him as much as possible in workouts before the draft cuz it would be his coaching job if its a miss.
I guess i'm more inline with Parcell's opinion of drafting QB's... atleast a 3yr starter, good winning percentage, and strong enough arm to make all the throws. Tannehill has none of those qualities.
BUST BUST BUST BUST BUST.... written all over him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
but I still don't get the argument why that same QB is better value in the 2nd where you draft starters too...sure...a 1st rounder is considered a "safer bet", so I'm all for getting that same QB in the 2nd and not top 10...but that's where position scarcity and thus value comes into play...there simply aren't as many "potential" franchise QBs in any given drafts as there are potential cowbell RBs, WRs etc...
Well the later you can draft anybody increases their value... I get that there aren't as many potential (thanks for putting it in quotations) franchise QBs.. which is why so many teams reach for them. I don't really want to be one of those teams. The reason that reaching for a QB scares me is for one simple reasons, it's like going all-in in poker.. If you take Blackmon at #4 and let's say he never turns into Fitz or Megatron.. but he's a Michael Crabtree.. Crabtree still leads his team in reception yardage and is almost a 1000 yard receiver who contributes and may still get better as their QB improves.. worse case you might have to find a legit #1 and Crabtree becomes a very capable #2 WR... Using that same logic for QBs if you draft him at #4 and he never turns out to be Aaron Rodgers but ends up more like Rex Grossman or Josh Freeman... it's not like you can find solice in the fact that at least he's mediocre and you can still use him on your team.. That's why I refer to it as a wiff. If you swing for the fences with a WR and don't hit a home run, there is a good chance you at least end up with a double.. if you swing for the fences with a reach at QB and don't hit a home run there is a good chance you are striking out.
If we had a more talent in a few key areas, I might be inclined to reach for a QB to pull it all together but considering how thin we are in a few areas... I just think the risk is too great.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
I wasn't agreeing with Toad, just pointing out that Blackmon get open short, middle, and deep. That's something our receivers don't do and the primary reason they're considered so bad. I don't know how good he was expecting Blackmon's routes to be.
Who said Blackmon doesn't run good routes? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Toad said his routes "weren't as good as [he] thought they'd be."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Good point DC. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,557
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,557 |
He was a freshmen beaten out by a junior who was good enough to make it into the NFL. He quickly became the teams best receiver so his opportunity to return to QB was undoubtedly stacked against him.
Now as for judging a player based on record, I don't think there is anything dumber than drafting a player according to how well his team played. Vince Young woo hoo National Champ. Matt leinart he is a day one starter. Colt Mccoy the winningest QB in the history of college football, man we gotta get him. Fans make that mistake and sadly owners tend to overrule general managers into making those bad decisions.
PS we have scheduled a private workout for Tannehill at Texas A&M and also bringing him to Berea for a visit.
I really think if guys like Kiper had been on board with Tannehill two months ago most would be crying for us to draft him.
The kid has everything you look for but experience.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Toad said his routes "weren't as good as [he] thought they'd be."
Oh, I should have guessed.
When did Toad become an expert ? 
Like Shurmur said
"he runs well in traffic" ... you don't do that by running poor routes.
Mud slinging is what I call it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,557
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,557 |
Most spread receivers are very poor route runners but are great at finding the soft spot in zones.
brain fart there my appologies
Last edited by Mourgrym; 03/30/12 04:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Most WCO receivers are very poor route runners but are great at finding the soft spot in zones.
Please 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,557
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,557 |
I meant spread offense not WCO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
And Experience and being a winner is big in my book!!!
Athletes just don't come in and win..... especially when you are moving to the next level. It is something that is learned. I agree that you can't judge a player by a teams performance but ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU ARE DOING WITH COLT??? but for Tannehill it is ok????? My point is that in college... especially in the Big12 of lately, a qb should be dominate in college. If he can't pick apart the BIG12, what makes u think he is gona pick apart the AFC North???
And who is the qb that beat him out thats in the NFL???? Jerrod Johnson???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
I really think if guys like Kiper had been on board with Tannehill two months ago most would be crying for us to draft him.
.
I will be Crying if we draft him in the 1st round... and put me on suicide watch if we get him at #4
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
I meant spread offense not WCO.
LOL ... big difference.
The only route that Blackmon did not run much of at Okie St. was the deep comeback (out), because Weeden wasn't throwing that one, because he doesn't make that throw very well and they limited that route for that reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,557
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,557 |
Do you not see the difference between the 2 qbs?
I can't think of one single area regarding QB in which Colt has the advantage over Tannehill other than experience.
I got it you are a Colt defender. Gotcha.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,555
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,555 |
Quote:
Do you not see the difference between the 2 qbs?
I can't think of one single area regarding QB in which Colt has the advantage over Tannehill other than experience.
I got it you are a Colt defender. Gotcha.
I really think, if you are discussing what to do with the fourth pick -- that you should compare Tannehill to Claiborne, Blackmon, Richardson and Kalil -- rather than McCoy
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Do you not see the difference between the 2 qbs?
I can't think of one single area regarding QB in which Colt has the advantage over Tannehill other than experience.
I got it you are a Colt defender. Gotcha.
Im just pointing out the inconsistencies with your arguements.
And FYI... Your right, I'm not being impatient when it comes to McCoy like a lot on this board has. The Jury is still out on McCoy for me. Last year was a messed up year from OTA's to him being injured that last few games.
I do think it would be great to bring in a veteran to help McCoy. I think we pass the point with in letting him sit behind a veteran.
I'm definitely not ready to sell the farm for RG3/tannehill/or any other qb in this draft. Or ever....
And I would pick RG3 at #4.... if available.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Quote:
Do you not see the difference between the 2 qbs?
I can't think of one single area regarding QB in which Colt has the advantage over Tannehill other than experience.
I got it you are a Colt defender. Gotcha.
I really think, if you are discussing what to do with the fourth pick -- that you should compare Tannehill to Claiborne, Blackmon, Richardson and Kalil -- rather than McCoy
Blackmon-Starter any team in the league
Kalil-potential all pro
Clairborne- Starter....Actually I like kirpatrick better
Tannehill- ??????????????????????????????????????????????
I like potential upside in players, but having so much unproven credentials and all upside is never good thing. Having him in a discussion as a top 10 pick is redonculous. You lose all credibility with me if you do. And don't quote McShay or Keiper cuz i lost respect for their opinions many years ago.(Especially w QB's) They had Brady Quinn as a top 5 pick 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,279
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,279 |
Quote:
If someone jumps us, we need to start planning for next year as well.
I agree, as in a trade down more than a few slots to get a #1 next year.
I'd consider a #1 next year and a 2nd this year.....maybe toss in a decent guard.
If we go with Colt we are bound to have a fairly crappy record, so we will still have a pretty good #1 pick.
That is why I take Tannehill at #4. Colt is still going to start for a good portion of the season, so we are still going to draft fairly high next year, and that's when Tannehill takes over, we trade Colt for a 6th rounder.
Then at least we have some hope.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
Quote:
If someone jumps us, we need to start planning for next year as well.
I agree, as in a trade down more than a few slots to get a #1 next year.
I'd consider a #1 next year and a 2nd this year.....maybe toss in a decent guard.
If we go with Colt we are bound to have a fairly crappy record, so we will still have a pretty good #1 pick.
That is why I take Tannehill at #4. Colt is still going to start for a good portion of the season, so we are still going to draft fairly high next year, and that's when Tannehill takes over, we trade Colt for a 6th rounder.
Then at least we have some hope.
The Colt hate is strong.
Why trade him away, even if Tannehill lights it up? He would be a good back-up, and doesn't cost a fortune.
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If someone jumps us, we need to start planning for next year as well.
I agree, as in a trade down more than a few slots to get a #1 next year.
I'd consider a #1 next year and a 2nd this year.....maybe toss in a decent guard.
If we go with Colt we are bound to have a fairly crappy record, so we will still have a pretty good #1 pick.
That is why I take Tannehill at #4. Colt is still going to start for a good portion of the season, so we are still going to draft fairly high next year, and that's when Tannehill takes over, we trade Colt for a 6th rounder.
Then at least we have some hope.
The Colt hate is strong.
Why trade him away, even if Tannehill lights it up? He would be a good back-up, and doesn't cost a fortune.
I agree. I'll take Colt as our backup QB any day over Seneca Wallace, BQ, DA, Charlie Fry ect...
And we are not paying him crazy money for a backup.
Just ask the Jets 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
Quote:
I agree, as in a trade down more than a few slots to get a #1 next year.
I'd consider a #1 next year and a 2nd this year.....maybe toss in a decent guard.
If we go with Colt we are bound to have a fairly crappy record, so we will still have a pretty good #1 pick.
That is why I take Tannehill at #4. Colt is still going to start for a good portion of the season, so we are still going to draft fairly high next year, and that's when Tannehill takes over, we trade Colt for a 6th rounder.
Then at least we have some hope.
On the flip side, if a miracle happened and we drafted Tannehill and Colt has a breakout year we could trade Tanny for whatever we can get. From what I understand, We do not have Tannehill ranked at the top of our draft, so it is all moot and should start thinking more along the lines of Weeden at 37 if anything. Peen you would be ecstatic if McCoy lights it up this year wouldn't you?
"Going from 4-12 to 6-10 isn't good enough. I believe we are going to be better than that. We're going to be a lot better than that." - Mike Holmgren (3/15/12)
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums The Archives 2013 NFL Season NFL Draft (2013) PD: Justin Blackmon makes sense
for Cleveland Browns, but team has
plenty o
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}