|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
I can't say I've heard a stranger comparison. Smarts and competitiveness may be similar. Weird is all I can say.
A month ago I said that he's be the pick at 4 and Holmgren would find a way to sell it to the fanbase. Is Danielson doing the Browns a favor here? Comparing an unpopular yet in my mind a good pick with one of the most beloved Browns of all time?
That's the only thing I can come up with that makes even remote sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 295
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 295 |
They're both white, so in that way they are similar, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Agree - I don't get the comparison. I saw Kosar play, and I've seen Tannehill a couple times, but there was never once a time when I watched Tannehill and thought of Bernie. Tannehill is athletic and mobile, but I didn't see any of the manifest intuitiveness and audacity that Kosar showed as a QB.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
If Tannehill will come here and Win, then they would be similar.
So I'm looking for these new smileys, I guess I'll have to work for it.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212 |
I think this is just a big smoke screen. And the browns are playing their cards perfectly. Build up Tannehill, make the dolphins nervous, the dolphins trade with the vikes, Kalil drops to #4, the rams trade up to get him and we come out of this with extra picks. ITS all a win-win, except we'll be called losers in the media because we lost out on another QB.......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
The game has changed tremendously in the past 10 years. The passing game IS the offense now. I would bet anything neither Dilfer or Brad Johnson would ever win a super bowl in this era, no matter what defense they had.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
The game has changed tremendously in the past 10 years. The passing game IS the offense now. I would bet anything neither Dilfer or Brad Johnson would ever win a super bowl in this era, no matter what defense they had.
Alex Smith was a couple muffed punts from having a shot at one.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Quote:
The game has changed tremendously in the past 10 years. The passing game IS the offense now. I would bet anything neither Dilfer or Brad Johnson would ever win a super bowl in this era, no matter what defense they had.
Alex Smith was a couple muffed punts from having a shot at one.
And the browns were a drive and fumble away too. Does not matter unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
in the overall scheme, no it does not. however, to suggest that a team cannot possibly win without a premier passer while relying on their defense is folly when 2 teams who made the conference championship games did just that (SF and Baltimore).
Both lost, but they were very close and both could have won. One of those teams was a dropped pass from winning or missed FG from going to OT. The other a couple of muffed punts from winning.
And, I can bring up the Jets in the 2 years prior also getting to the doorstep.
It makes the margin for error much slimmer, but it still can be done.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Both lost, but they were very close and both could have won. One of those teams was a dropped pass from winning or missed FG from going to OT. The other a couple of muffed punts from winning.
My point is that you can literally say this for any team to ever play in those types of games. Look at the past decade and the strength of those teams passing attacks that played in the SUPERBOWL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551 |
To be fair Sanchez steps his game up big time in the playoffs or when the playoffs are on the line. Anyway if you dont have a terrific QB, your chances are slim to none.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
ok, what about Pittsburgh? Ben's 1st SB year he sure wasn't a high-flying passing man. NYG's 2007 season wasn't built on Eli's arm. He played much better in the playoffs but noone was pointing to them as a high powered attack until after they won. Or, take a look at how Peyton actually did in the SB that he won.
I understand having an elite QB gives you much, much better odds of getting there and winning. However, I think people are taking it too far and saying that it is the ONLY way to get things done. Plenty of successful teams disagree.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Both lost, but they were very close and both could have won. One of those teams was a dropped pass from winning or missed FG from going to OT. The other a couple of muffed punts from winning.
My point is that you can literally say this for any team to ever play in those types of games. Look at the past decade and the strength of those teams passing attacks that played in the SUPERBOWL.
I never understood the logic that you should emulate the team that played in the super bowl but not the team that lost the conference championship game in the final minute. Are they really that different? Why not only emulate the team that WON the super bowl? Why not emulate the division winners and not the wild card teams? What do you do then if the wild card team makes it to the super bowl? Oh the quandry.
Simple fact is that to win consistently in this league you have to be good at more than one thing because eventually some other team is going to successfully take that one thing away from you and you better be able to rely on something else. The other simple fact is that a lot of teams that get to the super bowl end up relying on things in the playoffs that were not necessarily strengths in the regular season... some teams just freakin' get hot in the playoffs and its hard to explain why.
The more facets of the game you are good at, the better your chances of winning consistently in the regular season and the playoffs and I'm not sure there is one single facet you can look at and say, "This is the one you HAVE to be good at to win the super bowl."
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
Quote:
I think this is just a big smoke screen. And the browns are playing their cards perfectly. Build up Tannehill, make the dolphins nervous, the dolphins trade with the vikes, Kalil drops to #4, the rams trade up to get him and we come out of this with extra picks. ITS all a win-win, except we'll be called losers in the media because we lost out on another QB.......
The Rams wouldn't beleive the Browns would take Kalil at #4. Who is at 5?
Tannehill is going to go to either the Browns, Tampa Bay, Miami, or maybe even Dallas.
If the Browns don't take him, then they passed on him. If they pass on him, then it is their own fault.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,331 |
Quote:
I never understood the logic that you should emulate the team that played in the super bowl but not the team that lost the conference championship game in the final minute. Are they really that different? Why not only emulate the team that WON the super bowl? Why not emulate the division winners and not the wild card teams? What do you do then if the wild card team makes it to the super bowl? Oh the quandry.
Simple fact is that to win consistently in this league you have to be good at more than one thing because eventually some other team is going to successfully take that one thing away from you and you better be able to rely on something else. The other simple fact is that a lot of teams that get to the super bowl end up relying on things in the playoffs that were not necessarily strengths in the regular season... some teams just freakin' get hot in the playoffs and its hard to explain why.
The more facets of the game you are good at, the better your chances of winning consistently in the regular season and the playoffs and I'm not sure there is one single facet you can look at and say, "This is the one you HAVE to be good at to win the super bowl."
Great post. Absolutely agree with it
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
I never understood the logic that you should emulate the team that played in the super bowl but not the team that lost the conference championship game in the final minute. Are they really that different? Why not only emulate the team that WON the super bowl? Why not emulate the division winners and not the wild card teams? What do you do then if the wild card team makes it to the super bowl? Oh the quandry.
Simple fact is that to win consistently in this league you have to be good at more than one thing because eventually some other team is going to successfully take that one thing away from you and you better be able to rely on something else. The other simple fact is that a lot of teams that get to the super bowl end up relying on things in the playoffs that were not necessarily strengths in the regular season... some teams just freakin' get hot in the playoffs and its hard to explain why.
The more facets of the game you are good at, the better your chances of winning consistently in the regular season and the playoffs and I'm not sure there is one single facet you can look at and say, "This is the one you HAVE to be good at to win the super bowl."
Great post. Absolutely agree with it
x2
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
Quote:
The Rams wouldn't beleive the Browns would take Kalil at #4. Who is at 5?
Tannehill is going to go to either the Browns, Tampa Bay, Miami, or maybe even Dallas.
If the Browns don't take him, then they passed on him. If they pass on him, then it is their own fault.
Actually I think KC and Denver would be real strong possibilities even More so than Cleveland, Tampa and Dallas. I agree Dallas would be a good destination for him and Denver would be ideal. The Rams might not believe the Brown's would take Kalil but they know they would trade out of that spot.
"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)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I agree that Denver would be the ideal landing spot for Tannehill. Provides them protection if Peyton gets hurt down the line, while giving Tannehill tons of time to learn without pressure (if Peyton stays healthy).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551 |
Jim Irsay calls Ryan Tannehill “a hidden gem in this draft” Posted by Michael David Smith on April 11, 2012, 1:23 PM EDT Ryan Tannehill AP Colts owner Jim Irsay has already tweeted that Andrew Luck is the Colts’ likely selection with the first overall pick in the NFL draft, but that isn’t stopping him from talking up another quarterback, Texas A&M’s Ryan Tannehill. Irsay is not, however, suggesting that there’s any chance the Colts will take Tannehill. Instead, he’s saying that after the Colts take Luck and the Redskins take Robert Griffin III, some team will trade up with the Vikings and take Tannehill third overall. “Tannehill is a hidden gem in this draft,a quiet secret who was always sneaking up to #3..you want him,you better talk to Zigi The Biggie!” Irsay wrote on Twitter. “Zigi The Biggie” would be Vikings owner Zygi Wilf, whom Irsay apparently thinks is the person who will ultimately decide what Minnesota does with the third overall pick. From all indications Irsay has been totally locked in on Luck for months, but he apparently likes Tannehill as well. And he’s not alone. Although few people viewed Tannehill as a Top 10 overall pick during his senior season at Texas A&M, over the last few months his profile has steadily risen, and now it doesn’t sound totally unreasonable that some team would offer the Vikings a package of picks to take Tannehill third. Whether Tannehill is a gem or not remains to be seen, but he’s no longer hidden. web page
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Gawd...  Two more weeks... Two more weeks... Two more weeks...
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Irsay really seems to see his football team as a toy I think. Not saying that's good, bad, or indifferent, but he seems to make light of it quite a bit compared to other owners.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
Surprised that you posted this Mourg. I thought you started a thread about why Twitter shouldn't be allowed on here and this whole article is derived from a tweet.
Which makes me wonder why Irsay would tweet this. I mean... Is he just sitting around having lunch and gets the sudden urge to tweet about a QB that he will have no part of? If he is a hidden Gem does that mean he will take him at 1? What is the point? Is he going through tweet withdrawals after the Manning fiasco?
"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)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I think Irsay just discovered that in a matter of a few seconds he can tweet random, sometimes off the wall things, and get lots of attention... and he really likes the attention.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
He's the Charlie Sheen of the NFL.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think this is just a big smoke screen. And the browns are playing their cards perfectly. Build up Tannehill, make the dolphins nervous, the dolphins trade with the vikes, Kalil drops to #4, the rams trade up to get him and we come out of this with extra picks. ITS all a win-win, except we'll be called losers in the media because we lost out on another QB.......
The Rams wouldn't beleive the Browns would take Kalil at #4. Who is at 5?
Tannehill is going to go to either the Browns, Tampa Bay, Miami, or maybe even Dallas.
If the Browns don't take him, then they passed on him. If they pass on him, then it is their own fault.
Do you think that the Rams where going to take Griffen at 2? No, but if the Vikings trade out of pick 3 and Kalil falls to us then the Rams will want to go after Kalil to beat another lower teams chance at trading up for Kalil.
Kalil would probably draw a few teams into thinking about trading up for the best LT.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551 |
I think the Vikings were hoping for another QB needy team giving up a slew of picks for Tannehill. I could however see the Rams giving up pick 33 to move up to get that LT.
Starting to believe if we trade down, it will be at 22 and not at 4.
Then again, Merciless, Jonathon Martin, Stephen Hill, I don't know if i would trade down lol.
Last edited by Mourgrym; 04/11/12 09:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
I think the Vikings were hoping for another QB needy team giving up a slew of picks for Tannehill. I could however see the Rams giving up pick 33 to move up to get that LT.
Starting to believe if we trade down, it will be at 22 and not at 4.
Then again, Merciless, Jonathon Martin, Stephen Hill, I don't know if i would trade down lol.
Yeah, I like either J Martin or Perry at 22. I don't think that Hill is a good fit or even in our plans, because he needs to go to a team like the Cardinals who has an established veteran #1 WR imo. (He will not do as well as the go to guy right from the start).
I really don't want to target a WR at 22, because of some of the other positions of need figure to be in the mix there.
Merciless I think will be gone by 22, because like Ingram he will appeal to both defensive types as a OLB / DE.
I think Perry will be better off at DE, although I have seen some mocks having him go to the Steelers in the 1st round.
I think they are in the same boat as we are hoping to get one of the top 4-5 OT's.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 747
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 747 |
Quote:
I think Irsay just discovered that in a matter of a few seconds he can tweet random, sometimes off the wall things, and get lots of attention... and he really likes the attention.
He didn't just discover it, this clown has been doing this for quite a while now.
[color:"white"]I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane -Waylon Jennings
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
This article is written by Dolphins Beat Writer for the Palm Beach Post similar to Ulrich or Doershuk so I don't see any issues. It's the Yin to Gary Danielson's Yang. If by some chance there is please Remove ref. Billick compares Tannehill to Jamarcus Russell ESPN reporter Adam Schefter went on the Mike and Mike radio program on Wednesday and said that the Dolphins face a lot of pressure to draft quarterback Ryan Tannehill with their first-round pick “to at least quiet this perception that has existed that they have been unable to get guys that they targeted,” (Jeff Fisher, Jim Harbaugh, Peyton Manning, even Matt Flynn). Schefter said the Dolphins may have to do whatever it takes to get Tannehill – graded by many as a low-first or second-round prospect – even if it means trading all the way up to the No. 3 pick to get him. “If somebody catapults them in the draft … no matter how much they did or didn’t want Ryan Tannehill, it’s going to look bad for the organization,” Schefter said. That might be true. But host Mike Golic and former Ravens Super Bowl-winning coach Brian Billick both agreed that that would be a terrible reason to draft Tannehill. “If you don’t think he’s a franchise quarterback, that’s not the way to solve your problem,” Golic said Thursday morning on air. “Just because you feel your organization has taken a hit on quarterbacks is no reason to be taking a guy, even at your spot at 8, let alone trading up to 3.” “By saying, ‘We better take a quarterback because people are starting to talk around here that we can’t get a quarterback, so let’s just grab the next quarterback available,’ that’s a bad road to go down.” In our Mock Draft, we have the Dolphins taking UNC defensive end Quinton Coples for just that reason. Getting an elite, game-changing pass rusher is a better use of the eighth overall pick than gambling on a raw quarterback. Billick said on the show Thursday that Tannehill has the feel of “a classic miss,” given that he only started 19 games at quarterback at Texas A&M and has risen up many mock draft boards simply because he happens to be the third-best quarterback in the draft, behind Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin. And just because the Dolphins haven’t drafted a first-round quarterback since Dan Marino in 1983 doesn’t mean they have to take a shot at Tannehill. “He is an intriguing prospect, he has great potential, but let’s remember the old saying – ‘Son, your potential is going to get me fired,’” Billick said. “‘Need’ is an absolute terrible evaluator.” Billick compared Tannehill to former No. 1 overall prospect JaMarcus Russell in that both had tremendous physical skills – Tannehill is 6-4, 221 pounds with a strong arm and good mechanics – but neither played much in college. “The way he’s rushed up the charts concerns me a great deal,” Billick said. “Here is Ryan Tannehill, who was not thought of this highly at the end of the season after you looked at the film, but has shot up the ranks because what we’ve seen of him in shorts. All of a sudden now we’re talking about him being a top 3 pick? That’s a dangerous area.” Golic said that if the Dolphins take Tannehill (either with the eighth pick or in a trade-up), it will put a lot of undue pressure on both Tannehill and the Dolphins. “You are now saying, ‘Our franchise, he’s going to make it or break it for the next five to 10 years’” Golic said. “And that’s a lot to put on a guy.”
Last edited by LOYALDAWG; 04/12/12 11:34 AM.
"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)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
NRTU...
About Tannnehill, Kiper is now saying he's overrated in the draft.
The ebb-and-flow of the rocketing prospects is always fascinating.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
What happened that he is now overrated? Kiper doesn't want to go through another Quinn episode where he about Cried when he had him rated so high and teams kept passing him over.. 
"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)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551 |
Billik and kiper have been taking shots at tannehill for awhile. It is probably why his stock keeps rising. When McShay said Tannehill was a more accurate passer when rolling out than either Luck or RG3, I thought Kiper would explode. lol
As for the PHins. I don't expect them to trade up. They would take Tannehill if he happened to fall to them but I can't see them trading up with Moore coming off a strong finish the season.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
j/c Here's a thought: When time expired on Tannehill's/Weeden's last second as a college athlete, where were they thought to be worthy of being picked in the draft? You know...after their last meaningful game? I'd say maybe the end of the 2nd for Tannehill and probably late 3rd or 4th for Weeden. Several months later, these guys are being talked about at #4 OVERALL or mid 1st.  I hope we stick to the tape and stay away from the hype.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
j/c
Here's a thought:
When time expired on Tannehill's/Weeden's last second as a college athlete, where were they thought to be worthy of being picked in the draft?
You know...after their last meaningful game?
I'd say maybe the end of the 2nd for Tannehill and probably late 3rd or 4th for Weeden.
Several months later, these guys are being talked about at #4 OVERALL or mid 1st.
I hope we stick to the tape and stay away from the hype.
That was Billicks point when comparing Tannehill to Russell.. not that he was going to flame out that badly but that both were later projections as football players, then when evaluated "in shorts" (his term) they shot up due to their athletic ability (and teams need for a QB)...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,551 |
These guys doing the projections are lazy. I had Tannehill top 20 well before regular season ended. I had Griffin in there as well when most had him as a 3rd rounder. those during season rankings don't mean all that much when you have people doing them that have never watched a kid play.
Griffin really wasn't on anyone's map until the game against Texas A&M. He showed up and looked like a real prospect.
I had Dontari Poe as a solid first round prospect when few had him in the top 10 of DT's.
You are just giving way to much credit to guys that watched less tape on these prospects than you did. Now these guys have talked to scouts and found out what their true value is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,278 |
I know where you are coming from and you are probably correct...what I did not say...is that I was/am talking more about the actual NFL teams than the talking heads.
For example: I doubt Heckert has Tannehill rated any differently today than he did after his last game ended. The meeting and workouts will have meaning for sure...but won't likely move a guy from the slot he is thought to be appropriate for drafting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
Quote:
“The way he’s rushed up the charts concerns me a great deal,” Billick said. “Here is Ryan Tannehill, who was not thought of this highly at the end of the season after you looked at the film, but has shot up the ranks because what we’ve seen of him in shorts.
I held this high of an opinion on Tannehill after his bowl game vs Northwestern.
I don't think it would be possible for him to improve his impressions with GM's by what he does " in shorts" , that doesn't happen at the Qb position.
It would be possible for him to fall down the ranks if hes showed signs of any problems but a Qb can't improve over his film by having a good combine, because Qb's are required to make so many decisions and the only way they can show improvement on that is on the field with with a defense and an offense.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
If you want a good laugh you have to watch this..I am cracking up as I type this. Mel Kiper and Todd McShay having a spat.  Mel Kiper vs McShay
"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)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
i love seeing turd mcshart sweat when Kiper basically calls him out for parroting articles on the internet that were out two weeks ago and TM has got nothing to back up his claims.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,338 |
Quote:
i love seeing turd mcshart sweat when Kiper basically calls him out for parroting articles on the internet that were out two weeks ago and TM has got nothing to back up his claims.
I love it too! I just wish they were both wearing shirts that said "Tool" on them..
"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) Tannehill v3.0
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
