FantasySharks.com

There are two types of Fantasy Football Owners: Sharks and Chum, which are you?
It is currently Tue 10.21.2014, 10:10

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 196 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun 03.25.2012, 12:54 
Offline
Blue Shark
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08.28.2011, 21:27
Posts: 399
Sand$: 1948
Donate
car.gif
pwbowen wrote:
I hate to break it to you, but the defenses in C-USA weren't any worse than what Okie St faced. They had 5 of the worst 20 defenses in Division 1A. Big 12 defenses sucked balls.

Well the point of posting the numbers was to show that people are really preparing to overdraft Tannehill. So I compared him to the #4 QB in this year's draft, Brandon Weeden. Since we're comparing the two, and they both played in the same conference, there's no issue with the numbers not being comparable.

And I know the majority of football fans are anti-statistics. But talent evaluation in the NFL is a hard thing, and stats are certainly one of the things you consider when evaluating talent. And Tannehill's statistical performance is really poor. Sure he has the prototypical size, but that's about it IMO.

I'm not a great talent evaluator (who really is?). But I'm really good with numbers, so I stick with what I'm good at. And when you evaluate the numbers side of Tannehill's game, its not close. I'll let you guys argue whether he has the right mechanics or whatever, but when you examine his production it comes up short.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 03.27.2012, 13:45 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 08.01.2009, 23:39
Posts: 29859
Sand$: 49091
Donate
Location: https://twitter.com/endzoneview
nyj.gif
Quote:
Although Browns coach Pat Shurmur says his team is moving forward with Colt McCoy at quarterback, drafting Texas A&M quarterback Ryan Tannehill remains a possibility.

Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that the Browns will bring in Tannehill as one of their 30 pre-draft visits.
via PFT


You have to bring him in, even if it's just to drum up possible trade interest.

_________________
Upon Further Review - Week 7


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 03.29.2012, 15:01 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12.21.2006, 15:58
Posts: 16403
Sand$: 7023
Donate
Location: Home of the Pittsburgh Steelers and 6 Super Bowls
pit.gif
Sure seems their (CLE) interest is more than just drumming up trade interest.

I suppose they're going through the process of looking at the QB's coming out next year and weighing Tannehill against them. If it's close, grab Tannehill now that they have the pick to do so and get him a year of experience.

CLE has to get a franchise QB (or one they believe will be one) sooner than later if you want to compete in the NFL because while I think Colt is a good kid, it doesn't seem like he is the guy and given the Browns front office interest in trading up for 1.02, they don't think Colt is either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 03.29.2012, 15:11 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 08.01.2009, 23:39
Posts: 29859
Sand$: 49091
Donate
Location: https://twitter.com/endzoneview
nyj.gif
Quote:
NFL Network's Jason LaCanfora reports the Browns are "thinking of selecting" Texas A&M QB Ryan Tannehill with the fourth overall pick next month.
Several sources tell LaCanfora the Browns are "monitoring Tannehill closely and have favorable scouting reports" on the QB. The report doesn't tell us much more than was already assumed. With four weeks to decide whether to pull the trigger on Tannehill, the Browns have no reason to show other teams anything other than serious interest. For what it's worth, ESPN Cleveland's Tony Grossi believes the Browns are still "leaning against" drafting Tannehill or Brandon Weeden.


Thinking of. Leaning against.

Riveting, riveting stuff. We have 4 more weeks of this 'inside' information to digest. Hooray!

_________________
Upon Further Review - Week 7


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 03.29.2012, 15:14 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri 07.07.2006, 10:59
Posts: 44454
Sand$: 98918
Donate
Location: The North Coast
jesteva wrote:
Sure seems their (CLE) interest is more than just drumming up trade interest.

I suppose they're going through the process of looking at the QB's coming out next year and weighing Tannehill against them. If it's close, grab Tannehill now that they have the pick to do so and get him a year of experience.

CLE has to get a franchise QB (or one they believe will be one) sooner than later if you want to compete in the NFL because while I think Colt is a good kid, it doesn't seem like he is the guy and given the Browns front office interest in trading up for 1.02, they don't think Colt is either.

...but if we liked Tannehill from the beginning why would we offer so much for RG3? Wouldn't we be better off keeping our picks and building around Tannehill?

I think this is part due diligence and part trade fluff. I imagine we like him, but not at the top of round 1. If he falls past Miami and does a nose dive, maybe we look at him, I hope we don't but maybe we will. But if we dial him up early round 1 we're just idiots.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 03.29.2012, 15:41 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon

Joined: Tue 08.18.2009, 16:31
Posts: 10447
Sand$: 15463
Donate
OarChambo wrote:
jesteva wrote:
Sure seems their (CLE) interest is more than just drumming up trade interest.

I suppose they're going through the process of looking at the QB's coming out next year and weighing Tannehill against them. If it's close, grab Tannehill now that they have the pick to do so and get him a year of experience.

CLE has to get a franchise QB (or one they believe will be one) sooner than later if you want to compete in the NFL because while I think Colt is a good kid, it doesn't seem like he is the guy and given the Browns front office interest in trading up for 1.02, they don't think Colt is either.

...but if we liked Tannehill from the beginning why would we offer so much for RG3? Wouldn't we be better off keeping our picks and building around Tannehill?

I think this is part due diligence and part trade fluff. I imagine we like him, but not at the top of round 1. If he falls past Miami and does a nose dive, maybe we look at him, I hope we don't but maybe we will. But if we dial him up early round 1 we're just idiots.


If they honestly, 100% like him, he wont get past MIA and unless you can trade back to #1.07 (the pick before MIA) then CLE wont have much choice but to take him that high.

Welcome to the Vikings 2010 war room.

Im sure they wouldve liked ponder to fall past a few teams and taken him later, but it wouldnt have happened then and it wont happen this year either so id be preparing for it

If its pre-draft fluff? I dont get it ... do they really think Richardson or Claiborne wouldnt help? Why else try to encourage a trade by putting out these rumors? I know Ross isnt the sharpest but if he did trade up to take Tannehill, those are two cornerstone players the Browns will be walking away from for what? Just to pick up an extra 2nd rnd pick :-k


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 03.29.2012, 15:44 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri 07.07.2006, 10:59
Posts: 44454
Sand$: 98918
Donate
Location: The North Coast
jamcutpost wrote:
OarChambo wrote:
jesteva wrote:
Sure seems their (CLE) interest is more than just drumming up trade interest.

I suppose they're going through the process of looking at the QB's coming out next year and weighing Tannehill against them. If it's close, grab Tannehill now that they have the pick to do so and get him a year of experience.

CLE has to get a franchise QB (or one they believe will be one) sooner than later if you want to compete in the NFL because while I think Colt is a good kid, it doesn't seem like he is the guy and given the Browns front office interest in trading up for 1.02, they don't think Colt is either.

...but if we liked Tannehill from the beginning why would we offer so much for RG3? Wouldn't we be better off keeping our picks and building around Tannehill?

I think this is part due diligence and part trade fluff. I imagine we like him, but not at the top of round 1. If he falls past Miami and does a nose dive, maybe we look at him, I hope we don't but maybe we will. But if we dial him up early round 1 we're just idiots.


If they honestly, 100% like him, he wont get past MIA and unless you can trade back to #1.07 (the pick before MIA) then CLE wont have much choice but to take him that high.

Welcome to the Vikings 2010 war room.

Im sure they wouldve liked ponder to fall past a few teams and taken him later, but it wouldnt have happened then and it wont happen this year either so id be preparing for it

If its pre-draft fluff? I dont get it ... do they really think Richardson or Claiborne wouldnt help? Why else try to encourage a trade by putting out these rumors? I know Ross isnt the sharpest but if he did trade up to take Tannehill, those are two cornerstone players the Browns will be walking away from for what? Just to pick up an extra 2nd rnd pick :-k

Still doesn't answer the 'then why make the push for RG3' ? though. If we like Tannehill that much then offering so much for RG3 was stupid.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 03.29.2012, 15:45 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Mon 09.27.2010, 23:48
Posts: 5973
Sand$: 11914
Donate
gb.gif
I'm sure the Browns would love to draft Tannehill with the 22nd overall pick.


But I'm even more certain they'd love to trade down the 4th overall pick to some team worried about Tannehill being stolen from them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 03.29.2012, 15:57 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Fri 03.28.2008, 14:43
Posts: 16722
Sand$: 17975
Donate
Location: Griff is a Demi God. I know this because I am one also.
min.gif
jnadke wrote:
I'm sure the Browns would love to draft Tannehill with the 22nd overall pick.


But I'm even more certain they'd love to trade down the 4th overall pick to some team worried about Tannehill being stolen from them.


You do have to hand it to the browns on getting teams to trade for there pick. Now they have the perfect smoke screen. We like Tannehill. were set at qb with Colt were willing to move down. Any team drueling over this kid either has to go to the vikes and trump the browns or deal with the browns directly which might I add is probably cheaper then buying the vikes off kalil....I hope that is who we plan to draft.

now only if the clowns could draft worth a dam everything would work out

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 03.29.2012, 16:20 
Offline
Great White Shark
Great White Shark

Joined: Mon 09.27.2010, 23:48
Posts: 5973
Sand$: 11914
Donate
gb.gif
badgasman9 wrote:
Any team drueling over this kid either has to go to the vikes and trump the browns or deal with the browns directly which might I add is probably cheaper then buying the vikes off kalil....I hope that is who we plan to draft.

For them, hopefully. They need Kalil (or Blackmon).

But yeah, the Vikings have no leverage. The 2 teams above them are already drafting QBs, and teams already know they're not stupid enough to draft Texas A&M QBs in back-to-back years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 03.29.2012, 17:13 
Offline
Megalodon
Megalodon

Joined: Tue 08.18.2009, 16:31
Posts: 10447
Sand$: 15463
Donate
OarChambo wrote:
jamcutpost wrote:
OarChambo wrote:
jesteva wrote:
Sure seems their (CLE) interest is more than just drumming up trade interest.

I suppose they're going through the process of looking at the QB's coming out next year and weighing Tannehill against them. If it's close, grab Tannehill now that they have the pick to do so and get him a year of experience.

CLE has to get a franchise QB (or one they believe will be one) sooner than later if you want to compete in the NFL because while I think Colt is a good kid, it doesn't seem like he is the guy and given the Browns front office interest in trading up for 1.02, they don't think Colt is either.

...but if we liked Tannehill from the beginning why would we offer so much for RG3? Wouldn't we be better off keeping our picks and building around Tannehill?

I think this is part due diligence and part trade fluff. I imagine we like him, but not at the top of round 1. If he falls past Miami and does a nose dive, maybe we look at him, I hope we don't but maybe we will. But if we dial him up early round 1 we're just idiots.


If they honestly, 100% like him, he wont get past MIA and unless you can trade back to #1.07 (the pick before MIA) then CLE wont have much choice but to take him that high.

Welcome to the Vikings 2010 war room.

Im sure they wouldve liked ponder to fall past a few teams and taken him later, but it wouldnt have happened then and it wont happen this year either so id be preparing for it

If its pre-draft fluff? I dont get it ... do they really think Richardson or Claiborne wouldnt help? Why else try to encourage a trade by putting out these rumors? I know Ross isnt the sharpest but if he did trade up to take Tannehill, those are two cornerstone players the Browns will be walking away from for what? Just to pick up an extra 2nd rnd pick :-k

Still doesn't answer the 'then why make the push for RG3' ? though. If we like Tannehill that much then offering so much for RG3 was stupid.


I hear you, but with RG3 off the table for all intents and purposes the options are not great if theyre after a young guy to push McCoy.

The push for RG3 was tried (bromance was the tie breaker) and now its either ... Plan B (Tannehill), or trying to trade back by hyping a player they arent after.

The latter option is even crazier imo, as if noone wants to overpay to move up, theyre probably best served by just standing pat and taking Claiborne or Richardson - w/ever they prefer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 03.29.2012, 19:58 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri 07.07.2006, 10:59
Posts: 44454
Sand$: 98918
Donate
Location: The North Coast
jamcutpost wrote:
The latter option is even crazier imo, as if noone wants to overpay to move up, theyre probably best served by just standing pat and taking Claiborne or Richardson - w/ever they prefer.

Yes. Surround McCoy with talent. If he still sucks then we'll be in a spot to trade for Barkley next year. If he improves with actual weapons around him, great. Move forward. If we go QB again then we're in the same position as the Vikes this year and we seem to constantly be in. Still not enough talent to win and stil have questions at QB and must pass on the hot names because 'we have to see.'

Taking Tannehill doesn't even make the Browns the guy that settled for the fat girl at prom. It makes us the fat girl.

_________________
Follow me @mchamberlin32


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 03.30.2012, 06:00 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 05.16.2009, 09:57
Posts: 30228
Sand$: 36024
Donate
Location: Arkansas
mia.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 03.30.2012, 07:57 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sun 09.11.2005, 10:42
Posts: 38811
Sand$: 36434
Donate
Location: Rock Hill, SC
car.gif
Elmagister wrote:


TLDW

_________________
34-17/ 29-7 / 34-13 / 27-17 / 31-17

2010 & 2011 Baseball National Champs

I was the smartest person I knew, certainly I had wherewithal to unravel the mysteries that lay at the heart of a moron.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri 03.30.2012, 08:23 
Offline
Supreme Megalodon
Supreme Megalodon
User avatar

Joined: Sat 05.16.2009, 09:57
Posts: 30228
Sand$: 36024
Donate
Location: Arkansas
mia.gif
pwbowen wrote:
Elmagister wrote:


TLDW


That's ok, you don't need to. You're in no danger of your team reacbing for him. It's all his pro day throws, complete with someone saying "woo" for some of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 196 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: birddog, Buccs4life, c2a, DELTA6TWO, Fantasy40, hankrip, mbowen, PlumDaddy, schabadoo, spc, Tacks652, votingmachine, WasteOfTime and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group