A&M had a crappy defense which made for a lot of shootouts. When you're throwing to win a game, you're gonna be prone to a few more picks. Good question to ask him in the interview though.

Remember that Tannehill came in to A&M as a QB and as a redshirt freshman nearly won the QB job. That he switched to WR and led the team in receptions for two seasons, say loads about his athletic ability, toughness, and team orientation. He continued to study with the QB's while playing WR, btw. For Tannehill to be so productive at QB so quickly is impressive.

Sure there's risk. But Clausen and Quinn didn't come to NFL teams that had Charlie Weiss. Tannehill is coming to a team with a coach and President that are from the same WCO tree as his college coach. I think Tannehill would benefit by sitting a year, but I think his familiarity in the offense together with his superior athletic ability and arm might enable him to win the job from Colt as a rookie.

All that said, it's entirely possible that Tannehill will come in and not even recognize the offense as a WCO because of Shurmur's dysfunctional play-calling.

mes78 wrote: What scares me about Tannehill most is 19 starts at QB and 21 interceptions. If you're throwing this many interceptions against college defenses, what are you going to do against teams like the Steelers and Ravens?

I don't care about your athleticism if you are going to be a passer in the NFL. The Mike Sherman influence reminds me of the Charlie Weiss influence with Quinn and Claussen. Tell me again the NFL QB's that Mike Sherman coached? Also, why in the hell would Sherman state that Tannehill was potentially a great NFL QB when his team is searching for one? Does he want someone else to draft him? Otherwise, why boost him up if you planned on taking him? Why chase Manning when a potential great QB is ready to fall in your lap in the draft? Seems strange to me.

Quinn played for Daboll who a Weiss disciple. Claussen played for Davidson (I think) who is also a Weiss guy. I don't know if Tannehill can make it or not, but the amount of turnovers, which seemed to happen against good defenses, is a major concern for me. I recall feeling that way about Matt Ryan too, and was clearly wrong, so take it for what it's worth.

---------------------------------------------
--- Air Al wrote:

A&M had a crappy defense which made for a lot of shootouts. When you're throwing to win a game, you're gonna be prone to a few more picks. Good question to ask him in the interview though.

Remember that Tannehill came in to A&M as a QB and as a redshirt freshman nearly won the QB job. That he switched to WR and led the team in receptions for two seasons, say loads about his athletic ability, toughness, and team orientation. He continued to study with the QB's while playing WR, btw. For Tannehill to be so productive at QB so quickly is impressive.

Sure there's risk. But Clausen and Quinn didn't come to NFL teams that had Charlie Weiss. Tannehill is coming to a team with a coach and President that are from the same WCO tree as his college coach. I think Tannehill would benefit by sitting a year, but I think his familiarity in the offense together with his superior athletic ability and arm might enable him to win the job from Colt as a rookie.

All that said, it's entirely possible that Tannehill will come in and not even recognize the offense as a WCO because of Shurmur's dysfunctional play-calling.

mes78 wrote: What scares me about Tannehill most is 19 starts at QB and 21 interceptions. If you're throwing this many interceptions against college defenses, what are you going to do against teams like the Steelers and Ravens?

I don't care about your athleticism if you are going to be a passer in the NFL. The Mike Sherman influence reminds me of the Charlie Weiss influence with Quinn and Claussen. Tell me again the NFL QB's that Mike Sherman coached? Also, why in the hell would Sherman state that Tannehill was potentially a great NFL QB when his team is searching for one? Does he want someone else to draft him? Otherwise, why boost him up if you planned on taking him? Why chase Manning when a potential great QB is ready to fall in your lap in the draft? Seems strange to me.

---------------------------------------------

OK, but we saw both Daboll and Davidson here, and they forgot anything they learned from Weiss before Quinn and Clausen got them. Run any offense conservatively and predictably and it is ruined... barring dominant talent all across the offense. Disciples don't seem to carry that knowledge away for some reason, Shurmur included.

mes78 wrote: Quinn played for Daboll who a Weiss disciple. Claussen played for Davidson (I think) who is also a Weiss guy. I don't know if Tannehill can make it or not, but the amount of turnovers, which seemed to happen against good defenses, is a major concern for me. I recall feeling that way about Matt Ryan too, and was clearly wrong, so take it for what it's worth.

Talent usually dictates aggressiveness. I don't know how to explain why I think this, but RGIII is so talented and creates so many matchup problems that I think any OC can be aggressive with him as your QB. With Tannehill I think the OC would have to manipulate the offense to protect him from making mistakes. Thus, changing the whole offensive approach to play calling.

Last time I watched Tannehill was the bowl game and he looked pretty damn poised and polished. He's only part of the way through a very impressive learning curve... and that would be accelerated by staying in a WCO at the NFL level.

You have to like the intelligence and physical ability. I don't think there's much chance he gets out of the top 10 and certainly not past 12 (Seattle). A lot depends on whether Miami has already signed Manning or Flynn.

Tannehill is out of the question for me if he does go in the first round.  If the Browns choose a QB he will take time to learn the WCO.  It does not matter who you draft the QB will take time.  Ideally, you would like a QB to learn in practice and not games, and I believe if we draft Tannehill in the 1st the pressure will be too great to start him at one point his rookie year.

Personally, I like the idea of signing a vet (Vince Young, Hasselback, or Campbell) that could hold up over 16 games, draft a QB with all the tools later like a Ryan Lindley out of SDSU, then cut Wallace.  Have Colt and the vet compete for the starting role...and go from there.  This is minimal investment on our part and gives us options for the future....And Yes Colt would still be in the mix.

whoknowsmore wrote: Tannehill is out of the question for me if he does go in the first round.  If the Browns choose a QB he will take time to learn the WCO.  It does not matter who you draft the QB will take time.  Ideally, you would like a QB to learn in practice and not games, and I believe if we draft Tannehill in the 1st the pressure will be too great to start him at one point his rookie year.

Personally, I like the idea of signing a vet (Vince Young, Hasselback, or Campbell) that could hold up over 16 games, draft a QB with all the tools later like a Ryan Lindley out of SDSU, then cut Wallace.  Have Colt and the vet compete for the starting role...and go from there.  This is minimal investment on our part and gives us options for the future....And Yes Colt would still be in the mix.

I disagree.  Tannehill played in the WCO at A&M.  With the way first rounders go pressure is part of the game.  If we select him I'd expect him to start sometime year one, if not the first game.  We have coaches and they are responsible for getting the players up to speed.

He is far from a project,   Everyone has a learning curve, it depends on how fast he is able to absorb and then execute.

Phipps what is your opinion of Tannehill vs. Weeden for the Browns' purposes, or would you go Flynn, or someone else like Foles?

Scroll down and Check out the story about Tannehill in the list .
"Why Tannehill is a first round prospect"

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2012...round-prospect/

Okay here's my 2 cents....

Before I was gung-ho over trading up for Griffin, and I'm still a little heartbroken that we didn't make the trade, and part of me is glad we didn't give up what the Redskins gave up - while most of me is mad that we didn't b/c it would've been only #4, #22, #37, and the 2013 first rounder. We would've gotten over it after one more draft while Washington is gonna be hurting for three years with no first rounder.

Anyways, what's done is done and we're all looking at our backup options at QB. I was always in the "Griffin, Flynn, or bust" camp, and while I would still be behind a Flynn signing, it's starting to sound like he's not viewed as a great prospect by NFL teams as much as we thought he would be. His upside isn't as appealing as Luck, Griffin, or even Tannehill. We need upside in a bad way.

So I decided that, while not a big Tannehill fan (I thought he wasn't that good last year and his inexperience is a big red flag), I would like to trade back from #4 and take Tannehill in the 6-12 range instead of using #4 on Blackmon/Richardson/Claiborne. Weeden is old and doesn't have that much upside or very polished mechanics, plus 2nd round QBs usually aren't good bets to be stars and I wouldn't take him before round 2. Tannehill gets a lot of Jake Locker comparisons b/c he is such a raw QB with great athleticism and fantastic raw tools. He is perfect for a west coast offense as well and is more accurate than Locker despite being erratic with decision making and forcing too many balls.

So if we can trade down and get Tannehill, acquire an extra 2nd or 3rd rounder and use the other picks to add to the talent we've accumulated the past 2 years, I would be very happy. It's better than anything else we can do at QB probably.

We're from absolutely opposite philosophies. Quarterback is so far and away the most important position... it's sort of beyond a position. Losing one (Manning) can take you from Super Bowl contention to the first pick. Getting one (Warner, Stafford, Ryan) can take you from the bottom straight to the top, or damn near it. There's nothing like it in all of team sports. 

Nobody looks for their starter after round 1... and most start right away or very soon after. QBs are just more prepared these days, attending passing camps and learning pro sets from about age eight. Most are looking pretty capable from jump street.

Did anybody think Locker looked out of his weight class in preseason and then spot duty? I sure didn't. Neither did Newton or Dalton. I'd take Ponder in a heartbeat. So where does Tannehill fit with this group as far as being "ready?" Considering he's playing in a true pro-style WCO?

Pretty high. I just don't think signing an old guy and drafting the most important position in round 6 is really a plan. 

whoknowsmore wrote: Tannehill is out of the question for me if he does go in the first round.  If the Browns choose a QB he will take time to learn the WCO.  It does not matter who you draft the QB will take time.  Ideally, you would like a QB to learn in practice and not games, and I believe if we draft Tannehill in the 1st the pressure will be too great to start him at one point his rookie year.

Personally, I like the idea of signing a vet (Vince Young, Hasselback, or Campbell) that could hold up over 16 games, draft a QB with all the tools later like a Ryan Lindley out of SDSU, then cut Wallace.  Have Colt and the vet compete for the starting role...and go from there.  This is minimal investment on our part and gives us options for the future....And Yes Colt would still be in the mix.

So..... if Tannehill is there at 22 do you take him? Provided Flynn is not signed by the Browns.

If he's there, I think so, unless they've fallen in love with Weeden or Osweiler or McCoy () by then.

bigpapaC wrote: So..... if Tannehill is there at 22 do you take him? Provided Flynn is not signed by the Browns.

he won't be there at 22. If we want him we're gonna have to either reach for him at 4 or trade down from #4 to get him. I doubt he lasts past the top 12.

Who knows more? Brownswarrior in this case.

brownwarrior wrote: We're from absolutely opposite philosophies. Quarterback is so far and away the most important position... it's sort of beyond a position. Losing one (Manning) can take you from Super Bowl contention to the first pick. Getting one (Warner, Stafford, Ryan) can take you from the bottom straight to the top, or damn near it. There's nothing like it in all of team sports. 

Nobody looks for their starter after round 1... and most start right away or very soon after. QBs are just more prepared these days, attending passing camps and learning pro sets from about age eight. Most are looking pretty capable from jump street.

Did anybody think Locker looked out of his weight class in preseason and then spot duty? I sure didn't. Neither did Newton or Dalton. I'd take Ponder in a heartbeat. So where does Tannehill fit with this group as far as being "ready?" Considering he's playing in a true pro-style WCO?

Pretty high. I just don't think signing an old guy and drafting the most important position in round 6 is really a plan. 

whoknowsmore wrote: Tannehill is out of the question for me if he does go in the first round.  If the Browns choose a QB he will take time to learn the WCO.  It does not matter who you draft the QB will take time.  Ideally, you would like a QB to learn in practice and not games, and I believe if we draft Tannehill in the 1st the pressure will be too great to start him at one point his rookie year.

Personally, I like the idea of signing a vet (Vince Young, Hasselback, or Campbell) that could hold up over 16 games, draft a QB with all the tools later like a Ryan Lindley out of SDSU, then cut Wallace.  Have Colt and the vet compete for the starting role...and go from there.  This is minimal investment on our part and gives us options for the future....And Yes Colt would still be in the mix.

---------------------------------------------
--- cmhdawg wrote:

Scroll down and Check out the story about Tannehill in the list .
"Why Tannehill is a first round prospect"

mattwaldmanrsp.com/2012...round-prospect/

---------------------------------------------

I encourage anyone that hasn't yet to go to the link cmhdawg posted and read it. He makes great points about some of the things that show Tannehill is more advanced than people are giving him credit for.

The difference between him and Barkley IMO is that Barkley will come into the NFL with limited upside and growth potnetial.

He is already advanced in the mental approach to the game but his physical skills will never be in the top half of the NFL. Ryan Tannehill will be. And if he comntinues to develop like he has already the POTENTIAL for him is higher than Barkley.

Barkley WILL NOT be the #1 pick next year.

Don't kill the messenger.  Just a link that somebody passed on to me on Tannehil. 

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2012/03/12/why-ryan-tann ehill-is-a-first-round-prospect/

Plus, are Tannehill and Weeden 1st-round picks?

Former NFL personnel guy chimes in.

www.nationalfootballpost.com/F...y-thoughts.html

Biscuit57 wrote: Don't kill the messenger.  Just a link that somebody passed on to me on Tannehil. 

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2012/03/12/why-ryan-tann ehill-is-a-first-round-prospect/

Great link.  Very impressive.