If Cleveland stays put, Rams may gamble that Cleveland takes Richardson and TB wants Claiborne. We could package our first and the bears third maybe even both bears thirds and swap with TB to get Blackmon. This would equal Marshall for Blackmon straight up. TB could still get Claiborne at 8 I hate trading away picks but that trade would make sense to me. To me they are found picks.
I really like Blackmon, but I'm not trading up for anyone from 8. I'd "settle" for Floyd without parting with a pick.
I'd love Blackmon if he is available at #8 but I'd rather trade back into the teens and select Fleener or Floyd while acquiring more picks than trade up and lose picks.
Normally I'd agree but, 1. Blackmon is gonna be special, IMO 2. If we do what the OP suggests, we're using a "bonus" pick anyway.
Look at what washington gave up to move from 6 to 2. Do you really think TB would take just a third for us to move from 8 to 5? No way. Theyll want at least a 2nd maybe two or more
1) I don't disagree but I see him as a top 10-15 receiver, not top 5. Which is what it would take me to trade up for a WR in a scheme that doesn't really require a dominant #1 2)It may be a bonus pick but it is still our bonus pick that can be turned into a solid player (Possibly a starting RT or a decent pass rushing end) instead of just one player. In my dream world we acquire Fleener at TE and Streeter at WR. Having watched him at Miami I can tell you this kid is going to be SPECIAL given the right coaching. Then use our extra pick (picks if we trade down into the teens) to acquire a guy we have confidence in at RT and/or DE.
At 8 I want: 1. Tannehill 2. Coples 3. Trade down and get more picks I do not want: 1. Trade up 2. Weeden 3. Defensive players not named Coples or OL. Im betting this is what we end up with though
You know I could live with just about anything but Tanny at 8. The guy is going to be under a microscope, and he really does not have what it takes to start day 1 not even year 1. If we stay at 8 and take BPA I am good. If we trade down to the teens and get Fleener or Floyd Im good. If we trade down twice and get Tanny or Weeden in the end of round 1, I'm ok with that too because we will have a ton of picks to throw against the wall. Reaching for Tanny I will puke!
Yeah I'm not a fan of Tannenhill. I see him as a product of people wanting to find a QB to believe in because the top two prospects will be going #1 and #2. Barkley didn't declare and that is the only reason Tannenhill is even being considered a first round talent. I think if he falls past us it is possible he falls all the way into the second round unless Cleveland really doesn't like McCoy the way they say they do.
we're not trading up for a receiver in the first. And I'd doubt we'd take Blackmon if Tannehill wasn't there and Justin was.
There is no way I'd trade up for Blackmon. He's a solid WR but he's not close to a Megatron or even Moss. He dominated college CB's, but he's not especially fast and his size is very disappointing (6'1, 207, 4.5+). It's not all about measurables, but I think he has a bigger "bust" risk (as a top 5 pick). A guy can still be a very good WR with his size ... but it's risky to make him top 10, imo.
This is just not true imo. I like Barkley a ton but he really has nothing to do with why Tannehill is being considered a 1st rounder. Tannehill is considered a 1st rounder because: - He has played in a legitimate pro style system and performed well. Plus Sherman was his HC so if we dont take him, that should either A) throw up the red flag, or B) we're trading back in to the late 1st to get him should he fall. I dont think that scenario is possible but I wont completely eliminate it. - He has displayed uncanny accuracy for a QB with such little (19 starts) college experience. I believe the exact number was 64 dropped passes last year, roughly 10% of his passes. Thats over 5 per game. - He has mobility which is something they love in WCO. Looks at all the good ones and they can all move even if they arent great scramblers in some cases like Montana or Favre. At best Rodgers, Vick, Steve Young, Jeff Garcia were all excellent in this offense. Its a timing based offense with a few different route trees and buying time in this offense buys you a lot of big plays if you keep your eyes downfield which Tannehill has show he can do. - He can identify defenses and displays good arm strength This isnt to say he doesnt have his flaws like arc on his passes, deep accuracy, and slight of frame. However the frame is easily adjustable with adding another 10-15lbs of muscle. Deep Accuracy accounts for approximately 5-10% of passes. Hes not completely inaccurate in that area, it just needs improvement. His arc is probably the hardest thing to improve and something Chad Henne never really improved to the extent he needed to. It takes work but if a QB displays the kind of short and intermediate accuracy that Tanehill does I take him anyway and say hes worth the investment
If you listened to Philbin's interview yesterday, you'd know that drafting an offensive lineman at 8 is a real possibility. He places a lot of importance on the O-Line in his offense and knows we have a hole to fill. I do not think they'll reach for an O-Lineman though. My best guess would be Tannehill, Coples, or Blackmon if he's there. And I'd love any one of them.
It won't be a WR. Philbin basically said number one type receivers are not all that important in his offense.
Remember, WR "is way overrated" and "Philbin's offense dosent need talent at the position" I mean look at Green Bay they had no top talent at WR....... Oh wait..... This isn't an argument to trade up for Blackmon either. I'm not in favor of trading up for anyone and favor trading down. That being said I continue to be amused at people trashing the WR position all of a sudden now that we don't have any serious talent there.
His ability to throw on the run is outstanding. Watching youtube videos, which of course is the ultimate way to scout, I have noticed that inside the pocket Tannenhill looks like a quarterback who can develop into a pretty good quarterback. It is possible, not 100%, but possible. Outside the pocket he is one of the best I have seen.
Just think we have other more pressing needs at that #8 spot if we don't go quarterback. Pass rusher being a big one.
I must be the only one that wants no part of tannenhill. I would rather just play it out with Moore and let him develop. I hope we go d-line, wr, or on a outside stretch lb but if were going lb we should probably trade down.
1. I concur. 2. I concur. 3. I concur. 1. I concur. 2. I concur. 3. Shaddup....... Well, I concur.... followed by shaddup.
Which is nice b/c, with Locker you were looking for reasons to get him out of the pocket, where as with Tannehill it's more like another tool in the arsenal.
If Barkley declared for the Draft, it would go 1) Luck to the Colts 2) RG3 to the Skins 3) Barkley to the Browns 4) Tanny to the Dolphins/Chiefs/etc. There is a need in this league for QB. Tanny might not be projected at the 4 or 8 spot like he is now...but he'd have a 1st round grade. That's for sure. He's already been given grades higher than multiple QBs that went 1st rd last year.
it has to be a QB, we finally have to invest a high pick into the position, we havent since dan, that was not a high pick back then, but it was the last time we picked a QB in the 1st round, we have to do it
I'm always suspicious of WR's from the Big 12. Major bust factor because defenses are so horrible. I do like Blackmon, but he's definitely not worth trading up for when the Dolphins have so many holes to fill. Even if he was, there's no way in Hell Ireland would do it.
I think that had more to do with Sherman's playcalling. He got very Sparano-esque in the second half of games and settled for a lot of FG's. Their offense was predicated on Cyrus Gray running the ball. Not sure you can put that all on Tannehill. As mentioned quite a bit, their WR Core was pretty awful and dropped a ton of passes. I realize what I'm saying isn't the greatest endorsement to bring Tannehill here, given we have Sherman as OC and a bad WR Core
I don't disagree with what you said, just what Philbin is implying. It's like Bill Walsh who allegedly says Montana was a product of his system. I mean, having greg jennings and donald driver, two 1000+ yard receivers, the whole time you've had your system can lead you to say that ... until you don't have Greg Jennings or Driver anymore (or Favre or Rodgers).