That's right. Ryan Tannehill plays quarterback. He is not a project safety, or tackle, or wide reciever. He is a project quarterback, who is currently being groomed by the same guy that groomed Cam Newton (who himself thinks he's awesome).
The majority of people compartmentalize (easy on the "mental") way too much. Somebody says "You simply have to get an instant impact player with your first round pick, especially if it's a high one. They make way too much money not to contribute immediately". This becomes not the rule of thumb, but THE RULE.
Logic, reason, disengaged. No more thought required, no madder wudd! Nevermind the new ROOKIE SALARY STRUCTURE, for instance.
I read a brilliant article by this guy, and can't find it again, but he's right there with Terry Pluto. I'll try to dig it up again so I can give my audience of crickets a link.
Anyway, he points out that yes, picking quarterbacks in the first round is risky. Only 53% of them eventually emerge as "franchise" types. Then, he points out that it's more like about seven or eight percent of the quarterbacks taken in rounds 2 through 7.
Among the first round "failures" listed were Tim Couch and Brady Quinn. In the Couch draft, Achille Smith was the second quarterback taken (by the Bungles), making Donovan McNabb the third quarterback taken...
Couch compiled a pretty good rookie season on a brand-new team with a brand new system and brand new coaches and team mates. Then the chronic tendonitis in his elbow destroyed his accuracy and eventually his arm fell off. Tim Couch was not a bust. His elbow was--so shut up with that.
He wasn't helped any by head Coach Chris Palmer, who steadfastly refused to include ANY roll-outs or shotgun formations in his offense to take advantage of his enate skill-set and help him develop in the pocket.
But I digress: 53% doesn't make it a crapshoot. Tom Heckert was with the team that selected McNabb over Culpepper in the same first round. Some evaluators are better than others. I can't prove it, but I believe that the Eagles had McNabb targetted all along, and would have drafted him over Couch or Smith. I personally liked him better, but am clueless compared to these guys.
Aaron Rodgers' weakenesses included his Colt McCoy height and questionable arm strength. He was drafted low in his first round specificly to ride the pines behind Brett Favre. I'm sure that some of the Packer faithful thought that was idiotic at the time. There are many other examples of first round, including high first round picks, who were drafted to ride the bench for a year or longer.
These were not always dominant teams, either. If there is a rule among REAL NFL GM's, I have heard it articulated by Gil Brandt, Pat Kirwin, and others. In their exact words, this is it: "IF YOU SEE A GUY THAT YOU BELIEVE CAN BE A FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK, YOU MUST TAKE HIM, EVEN IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A QUARTERBACK YOU LIKE."
Quarterback is unique. It's the most criticly important position on the team, and guys with franchise ability are very, very rare. A Ray Lewis or Adrian Peterson can help a team a whole lot, but a McNabb, Rodgers, or (yes) Roethsenberger can carry an otherwise average team into the playoffs and beyond.
All but two of the Superbowl quarterbacks over the last ten years were first round picks. The talent is evident. These guys know what they're doing. Of the failures, with Couch it was his arm--a purely physical issue. With others, it was arrogance, lack of commitment, other injuries, or even drugs.
NOTHING is a sure thing! What if you draft Richardson and he breaks his leg? He's a running back--the odds are that he won't even make it through his first season uninjured. What about Braylon Edwards? Stop yammering about "risk". Those who never take risks get beat by those with more guts and imagination. Every time.
This is all academic if Heckert and company don't think Tannehill has that sort of potential. They won't draft him. But if they feel he does, they will. I say WILL, regardless of fan polls etc.
#4 is too high, you say? Everybody agrees. But the market is the market, and McShea was right: Tannehill has the same kind of potential as Luck or RG3. No, he didn't say that he was just as good as those two. He said he had the same kind of talent and potential, so quit calling him an idiot. Dumb people always skip the thinking part, leap to conclusions, and hear what they want to hear.
Tannehill is a year or so behind the other two guys. The fact that he was a very good wide reciever before he was a quarterback is GOOD, not bad.
And listen: Part of the reason his stock has shot up after his Pro Day was due to the fact that he demonstrated great improvement in his mechanics, since being tutored by Chris Weinke and company. Don't make a big deal about his throwing "against air" to familiar recievers. All the talent scouts look for is mechanical proficiency and accuracy. These drills include throwing while rolling right and left, etc.
His stock has shot up because he's showed great progress physicly in a short time, and demonstrated franchise-type physical proficiency now...before the draft.
Take Tannehill at four, and you still have #22 and high second, third, and fourth round picks. With the four compensetories, they can use their original picks to trade up, and roll the dice on injured guys, small school kids, and projects in the lower rounds.
Nor is the "supporting cast" situation as "urgent", or "desperate" as it's being portrayed.
1: Massequoi played well when on the field and healthy. Those who say he didn't are watching the theatre of their minds, and seeing what they wanted to see. Lumping him in with Robiskie, and laying off some of Little's drops on him too.
2: Little dropped a bunch of passes early, but showed much better hands the later in the season he got. His season-long stat-line is almost horrific, but that's for lazy or stupid people. Break this stuff into halves and quarters, and you see progress. That's what Heckert and co. do: think with their brains.
3: You're writing off Cameron after his rookie season? Are you out of your damn mind?
4: The other tight ends are solid to exceptional as recievers, and this West Coast will use them a lot.
5: The next right tackle could be on the roster already, Steinbach could return at a lower salary, and Mitchell entering his third season should be ready to challenge for playing time at wide reciever-and HE could be a home-run threat. Whether any of this happens, who's to say? But Browns fans have the annoying tendancy to ignore all such positive variables.
I still love 4.4 running back David Wilson in the second or third round. If he had more experience pass-blocking, hadn't played in a spread offense, and hadn't outrun his blockers too often, he'd be right behind Richardson in the first round. ALL of this is fixable, though, and he's a home-run hitter with good hands.
If, by 2013 or 2014, Tannehill can start and become a franchise quarterback, DRAFT HIM, period. If McCoy turns into the next Joe Montana, all the better!
No comments:
Post a Comment