I hear what you're trying to get at, but I think in the end value is value and some team that values him regardless of need will jump up and get him. Ryan Mallett is touted as an example of the kind of free fall you're talking about, but look WHO grabbed Mallett. The Patriots, who already had Tom Brady, and thought the world of Brian Hoyer. They grabbed him because he was their #1 QB in the Draft, and the value was too good. Here are some stopping points in the 2nd round: #37 - If Cleveland passed at #22, does that mean they took Tannehill? If not, hard to imagine Weeden gets past #37. #41 - They would love to have a QB of Weeden's talent to replace Fitzpatrick, who threw 23 INTs last year. #42 - Did Miami take Tannehill? If not, there's no way Weeden gets past this pick. #43 - Value is value and Todd Monken, who coached both Brandon Weeden and Matt Flynn, said Weeden is the best he's seen. #44 - The presence of Ricky Stanzi may be enough to not see them go for a QB at #11 but all bets are off after that. #45 - Tony Romo is 32 years old and no matter what they say, they have to be getting tired of his late game antics. #46 - If they're looking at potentially a QB at #15 overall, you can damn well bet they'd be tempted by Weeden at #46 overall. #51 - Philadelphia again, same thing applies. #57 - Denver may decide #25 is too high and they need that pick to help Peyton, but they won't pass twice. #61 - At this point in the Draft, value is value and San Francisco doesn't have a thrower of Weeden's caliber.
A nice article. After reading it I want us to go get Todd Monken. That would be a steal. I think if Weeden is there for our 2nd pick, no way we pass him up.
No, I don't see him passing Miami AND Cle in Rd 2 since only one of those teams will likely have Tannehill. I was pointing out my doubt in needing to trade up for him as some suggested.
Not sure I get the growth angle. Weeden shows abilities at 28 years old that you HOPE this 22 year old will develop. That makes it seem very, "bird in hand versus two in the bush". And as I said...of course he'll grow in the NFL, he'll acclimate. I've heard the argument put forth that if you think Weeden can get better than you must necessarily think the likes of Kolb, McCoy, all these guys the NFL is near-ready to give up on, can also get better. First off, they can, but I doubt they get much better. Fact of the matter is, those guys have already been exposed to the concepts, players and speed of the NFL. They've had their shot to learn it and the chances are if they haven't learned it by now, they probably won't. Weeden hasn't had his shot yet. As for the physical thing, this guy has only played a contact sport for four years in his whole life. He doesn't have any arm or shoulder problems with throwing a football, and actually seems quite genetically gifted in that regard. He only took 20 sacks in college, and wasn't hit a whole lot aside from those. A lot of the issues you see with older players have to do with their feet, their legs, or in Garrard's case his back, which are all the result of HITS. Hell, most of the shoulder/arm damage is due to HITS as well, see Henne's shoulder, Brees' shoulder injury, Chad Pennington's shoulder history. I think you have to compare him with guys that also didn't take much wear and tear to their bodies, because they didn't play much until their late 20's. But the #1 reason ANY of these guys stop getting a chance to play is because they suck. Some asshat Mike Tanier at Shutdown Corner insists that the estimates of Weeden's longevity don't take account of the likes of Mike McMahon, Joey Harrington, Marques Tuiasasopu and Patrick Ramsey. But they're not talented. If Weeden is only as talented as them, he won't play. The only valid comparison he could bring up is David Garrard, who is 34 years old, got his shot at starting in his late 20's, and went to a Pro Bowl. The problem there? Simply put, his career is ongoing. Miami just signed him to potentially start. He's had 73 starts since he really got his shot, at 27 years old. But if his career ends up a bit shorter, look no further than his style of play. He's very rough and tumble, runs a bunch, likes to sit in the pocket and wait until pressure comes then scramble out of it. Coaches have him running run plays all the time. And actually I may have truthfully included Garrard in my study, anyway.
I'm not claiming the following argument is 100% true. But it is the basis of my skepticism. You judge his age vs. X number of traits you look for in a QB and of those X there are simply less traits that a 28 year old QB is likely to improve on than a 22 year old QB. A QB in his physical prime at 28 is at or closer to his ceiling than a 22 year old QB. A 28 year old QB in his physical prime playing against a field of college opponents, none of which is playing in their prime is an advantage. Is it mere coincidence that athletes reach their physical prime at the same time they've adapted to the pro game? Or would the physical prime of a players career be considered later if they all entered the NFL at 28?
First off, I firmly believe Miami would have to trade ahead of Buffalo to get him. Secondly, with so many teams clustered around one another that could take him, if any of those teams breaks off and decides to trade up for him, they get him and Miami/Cleveland are screwed. That to me dictates a situation where Miami/Cleveland are the ones doing the trading up, because one of those teams will not have Ryan Tannehill, and can't afford to take chances.
I believe that latter statement to be true, and obvious. I think you're confusing physical improvement with acclimation. Acclimation is the process of getting used to a new and different environment, and adjusting to it. This guy had off-the-charts production at Oklahoma State. He displays all the physical and mental traits he'll ever need at the next level. Now it's just a matter of acclimating to the game as it changes in the NFL, gets faster, etc. I don't care how old you are, you're going to acclimate to new environments. That's a human characteristic. How much of this "development" you speak of in the younger quarterbacks, is just acclimation, and not a guy getting physically, athletically better? We're not talking about a run/catch/hit/block position. The quarterback position is 80% mental.
Do you mean my point that they're not likely to improve much because they've already been exposed to the NFL?
I see your point, but I disagree. On average, a QBs physical prime produces their statistical best seasons from 27-32, if I'm not mistaken. What sustains a QB well past his physical prime is mental.
I think Seattle is good with giving Flynn a year or two. Cleveland is a real possibility -but I think they wait to get Weeden in the second round. So, if we are interested (and getting Blackmon at #8 or a trade down and BPA in the first) then we need to move up a bit. Our second and fourth rounders to trade up with the Rams or Vikes to get Weeden? Maybe get the Giants to bite on that trade? I would be content with 5-6 good years out of Weeden after the last decade plus of mostly poor QB play. A bit of a dream scenario, to get Blackmon and Weeden back together in the pros, but man the offense could look really good if they pan out! Add Ladarius Green at TE with a third rounder and the offense has some nice weapons.
Question for you CK, as you know I am a HUGE Weeden fan but was wondering in your analysis how much you saw Blackmon? Was wondering how much of his production is based on a great throw to him?
My opinion is that Justin Blackmon is a really good receiver, like Hakeem Nicks was a really good receiver coming out of North Carolina. Both speak to me in similar ways. There was NO WAY that Hakeem Nicks should have gone #29 overall like he did, and I thought that **** was crazy at the time. But at the same time, we're not talking Andre Johnson/Calvin Johnson caliber players. When you've got a ridiculous record breaking combo, there's more than just one guy involved. There's talent on both sides there. But in my opinion, Weeden did more heavy lifting than Blackmon. I saw so many long balls Weeden threw, and other big plays, that Blackmon just flat out botched. It's actually absurd how productive that combination COULD have been if Blackmon didn't show such performance anxiety in big play situations with the deep ball and other passes that should have been touchdowns. The two combined for 232 catches, 3304 yards and 38 touchdowns in 25 games. And it's messed up but there was at least another 400 yards and let's call it 5 touchdowns left on the field.
IMO if Tannehill is off the board before we pick, there is no reason to sacrifice a quality 3rd rounder (or 2nd) to trade up for Blackmon when you can keep your pick and take Floyd instead (if WR is the route you want to go). If he's not in the Calvin Johnson/Larry Fitz/AJ Green mold, then you don't trade up, and Blackmon isn't in that tier. I'd argue Floyd is closer to it than Blackmon just as I argued that Nicks would be a better pro than Crabtree. IMO Floyd has a better chance of producing vs tougher competition, which these 2 will see in the NFL.
We both think very highly of Weeden, obviously. However which would u pick? Weeden in the second given his age or Tanny with the 8th? I love both and think its a tough call. Of course if Weeds was the younger it wouldnt even be a question IMO.
Whenever you hear talk about Ryan Tannehill lacking anticipation with the insinuation that he just doesn't have "it", think of the following: "When Aaron Rodgers was coming out the one thing he lacked was any anticipation, he had to see a route come open" -Merrill Hoge, 2008 (after the Packers drafted Brian Brohm)
