Ryan Tannehill at 6th overall?

by Brutus89 on Jan 18, 2012 12:34 AM EST

Before your blood starts to boil and you turn over a recliner, hear me out.

A week ago, I actually started typing up this same post, but substituted Tyler Wilson's name. Wilson announced his return later that day, so that blew that out of the water.

I know most fans want Griffin more than they want cancer cured, but that's starting to look like a longshot in my opinion. Many are saying that with the Browns holding two first round picks, one being the 4th overall, it'd be hard to match such an offer to move up without bargaining everything. Me personally, I donno if I see the Browns trading up, or even drafting Griffin in general. He doesn't seem like a Holmgren guy, but I'm just one fan who knows nothing.

So, instead of beating a dead horse (Parks, you can post your animation anyways), I do have an argument to make for Tannehill ending up in the top 10, and maybe at 6 with the Redskins.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's Tannehill's fiance, not Tannehill. How silly of me. Here he is:

As fans, it's impossible to mock anything and be completely accurate, but we do tend to be good at recognizing tendencies come draft time. These are mine:
- Quarterbacks fly up draft boards every year, and do so not just with shorts and t-shirt workouts, but because of building hype and overall need.

- The Dolphins are picking at 9, the Seahawks at 12, trading back may prove costly if our intent is to target Tannehill. He may grade out as a middle to late first, early second prospect, but that has never stopped teams from drafting a guy high, see Christian Ponder and Blaine Gabbert a year ago, or even Mark Sanchez in 2009.

- The eyeball test tells me that Tannehill fits in this scheme. When I watch the A&M offense, I see many similarities to our own. Comparable route combos, designed roll outs, getting the ball out of the QBs hands on short to intermediate throws, and the need for accuracy on the run. This may be a situation where need trumps value. I think Tannehill fills our need.

He is very raw by game experience standards, but I think the ability is definitely there. As a senior, and only one year under his belt, he was making calls at the line and showed great anticipation in a lot of his throws.

I know we all want the Redskins to draft smart, nail every pick, and the value of the guys they get be right where they graded out, but so does every fan, and if Tannehill can work out, who's to say we shouldn't take him at 6?

Me personally, the idea of doing so is growing on me, and come draft day, it may not sound so crazy to others either. I'm sure I'll get it for this one, but feel free to give me your feedback.

Poll

Would you like it if the Redskins end up drafting Tannehill at 6?

Yes, it makes sense

54 votes

Hell no

88 votes

Surrender a lung to move up for Griffin

49 votes

Draft another position of need

68 votes

259 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

One mock actually has this as our pick...

I just don’t want to draft him at 6 if he is a guy that can fall to the 10-15 range and someone that really wants richadson is willing to trade with us

We do NEED a qb tho and if he is one that needs to sit a year and learn in our offense i’m fine with that

Just really want to get value for the #6 pick, honestly even if the pick faulters i want it to be a good value and not a reach. Some ppl bust, just don’t make it a “reach” bust, if that makes sense

by temujin83 on Jan 18, 2012 2:51 AM EST reply actions

This is the type of move that would set us back for another couple of years.

I have nothing against Tannehill and if we can’t secure our franchise QB, he would make a good developmental prospect. In my humble and completely irrelevant opinion if the Skins are using a top 10 pick, I want a franchise player at whatever position. If you consider we could take a shutdown corner, a top notch receiver or a book-end tackle. Reaching for a developmental prospect because of the Market is a bad idea and I think Shanny has already proven that he won’t take an overvalued player just for the sake of it (Blaine Gabbert)

Beck to the future!

by The Shanaplan on Jan 18, 2012 7:51 AM EST reply actions

This

I don’t like the idea of reaching when there is so much value in the #6 pick. And Tannehill at 6 would be reaching. Needing a QB doesn’t automatically make him worth the #6 pick. I actually think we are in a prime trade back position. I think we trade back, and Shanny still gets the guy he wants.

by willster on Jan 18, 2012 8:38 AM EST up reply actions

I agree completely with you.
I just see this becoming an actual possibility as the next 3 months continue and the buildup gets bigger and bigger.
My reasoning is, if they know he can be the guy and be good at it. Plus, I see a real dropoff after 5. I like Reiff, and I like Kirkpatrick, but now Kirkpatrick is having legal issues and the only guy I see of great value may be Richardson, in that case, I’d trade out if possible.

by Brutus89 on Jan 18, 2012 9:23 AM EST up reply actions

We need a QB and I agree

Griffin wont be there at 6, but we just can use the 6 on Tannehill. Its way to high. Either we trade down and hope he is still there (if not target Foles) or draft a WR, OL, or CB at 6

When I was a kid, my father told me, "Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it." -Russell Ziskey

by Redskin44 on Jan 18, 2012 8:52 AM EST reply actions

This is a huge reach

If we were picking 16-20, I’m all for reaching there but not at #6

by Bryan Black on Jan 18, 2012 8:59 AM EST via Android app reply actions

If the Redskins stay at number six

Who do you see them selecting that is not a reach?

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 18, 2012 2:01 PM EST up reply actions

you cant pick him that high at this point when he has a brokern foot

the move would be either to pick the BPA at 6 or trade down
tannehill should be a consideration in round 2

by skinsdad62 on Jan 18, 2012 10:03 AM EST reply actions

I dont think it has much to do with his foot

It has everything to do with the fact that you don’t spend a #6 overall pick on a developmental QB

by StephanHart on Jan 18, 2012 10:11 AM EST up reply actions

Just to be clear

Me personally, I’d like it if they hold that pick up for bidding. If Cincy wants to give us their 2 1’s for the 6th pick to grab, say, Richardson, that’s probably what I want to do. If for some reason Claiborne is on the board, I’d prefer they go in that direction.

What I prefer they do is get real value on a guy like Weeden. If he can give you 5 or 6 good seasons as a 3rd round pick, I think that’s a steal.

What I’m doing here is playing devil’s advocate and giving us something to talk about. I agree whole heartedly that drafting him at 6th would be a huge reach, as we see it now. But I also can find the positives and rationalization in doing so, mostly because I don’t think he makes it past 12, and if Shanahan is convinced that he’s the guy he wants to be running this offense, I think justifying it with the need to get “the guy” would make it okay.

by Brutus89 on Jan 18, 2012 11:14 AM EST reply actions

We should trade up to #2 to make sure we get Tanbehillberger

by jmpalomo on Jan 18, 2012 11:20 AM EST reply actions

If we can move up for Osweiler at 1st overall, I can see the logic.

by Brutus89 on Jan 18, 2012 11:33 AM EST up reply actions

Be careful–sarcasm and satire are being hunted down this week

Beware the editor with the beating cane

The world looks mighty different when you're peeking out your belly button

by Skins Fan '77 on Jan 18, 2012 2:03 PM EST up reply actions

Foles > Tannehill

by gskin53 on Jan 18, 2012 12:46 PM EST reply actions

Sound reasoning and explanation

I’m sold.

by mbedner on Jan 18, 2012 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

disagree, big time

by Brutus89 on Jan 18, 2012 2:25 PM EST up reply actions

Doubtful

by ENsDad27 on Jan 19, 2012 6:06 PM EST up reply actions

Draft

The Fiance’

"Women should have three breasts - two in front and one in the back for dancing." -Al Bundy

by HankMonahan on Jan 18, 2012 1:39 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

The Fiance has a higher grade.

Drafting Tannehill at #6 is beyond stupid. WalterFootball is also beyond stupid.

@Callahan_9 on the twitter machine.

by Diesel44 on Jan 18, 2012 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

I love Tannehill but drafting him at 6 is the reach or all reaches

That is Raiders taking DHB at #7 territory.

4-0 in the Divisional Round of the playoffs

by Jeff Bernard on Jan 19, 2012 10:14 AM EST up reply actions

But DHB has locked down the #3 wide receiver spot on that team....haha

by StephanHart on Jan 19, 2012 10:56 AM EST up reply actions

Figures this

from an Ohio State fan

Crying Lion

by Tiller56 on Jan 18, 2012 7:01 PM EST reply actions

You really wanna do this as a Penn State fan? I mean, do you REALLY wanna do this?

by Brutus89 on Jan 18, 2012 9:20 PM EST up reply actions

Claiborne Claiborne and Claiborne

by mr.snyderhireme on Jan 18, 2012 11:21 PM EST via mobile reply actions

Gone

He will not get past TB

by ENsDad27 on Jan 19, 2012 6:07 PM EST up reply actions

I'm with you brother

Although I don’t know if it’ll be him or Foles, hard judgement although shanny does value speed in his Qbs which would make me lean towards Tannehill. With everyone going back into the draft this year I can’t see Mike Shanahan not pulling the trigger on either of these guys. To move up would be to costly to move down we could miss out on both of these guys. If indy takes luck browns take rg3 miami takes tannehill (who they are very interested in) and seattle takes foles once again we will be left out. So we are going to have to reach or settle for a QB next year. And lets face it if we draft one this year wont he sit most of the year, MS doesn’t seem to big on starting rookies. But he has started both his first round picks so far.

A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America

by jbh1190 on Jan 19, 2012 12:00 PM EST reply actions

Open minded, thank you. I’m not saying this would be a great move, I’m not saying it’d be a valued pick at all. But I can understand the reasoning of it potentially happening. Tannehill’s foot hurts him, but free agency hasn’t already started and he’s already flying up draft boards. Unless Miami or Seattle grab Flynn or whoever else, I don’t think Tannehill makes it past 12.

I will never say this wouldn’t be the king of reaches, but this time last year, we were all saying how it was a lock that Ponder was a 2nd rounder. All I’m saying is, Tannehill sneaking into the top 10 shouldn’t be a shock to anyone.

by Brutus89 on Jan 19, 2012 3:24 PM EST up reply actions

I can completely understand the reasoning

& it might fall out this way in April. Missing on Ponder (or any of the other QBs that went ahead of their projected draft position) makes it very clear that if you think a QB can lead your team then you better go get him, cuz there’s a good chance he won’t be around when your next pick rolls around

by ENsDad27 on Jan 19, 2012 6:12 PM EST up reply actions

I think I’d actually be upset if they did this. Personally, I want them to continue building and if they can trade back, I’d prefer it. That is, if they can’t land a Claiborne. If he’s there when we trade back, he’s there. But I know the pressure from the fan base to land a QB is on, and that could play a roll here.