Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a bomb.
Personal opinion:
I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a bomb.
> Personal opinion:
> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
> TH
All three of the major newspapers had glowing reviews and a guy identified as a sports blogger who was tapped on the ESPN NFL Live program to report on the Tannehill premier had the same sort of comments. What emerges is a picture of a kid who knows the offense, understands his role and who isn't afraid to let it go.
Let us hope that this is just the first of many "surprised" reports from practices that indicate that RT has franchise potential.
I will "see" your mid-season bet and raise you an opening day start. Until I hear from camp that Moore has picked it up and is looking comfortable in the Sherman offense, i will see RT as the favorite to win that starter's job (Holding on to it might be a bigger issue).
> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a bomb.
> Personal opinion:
> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a backup. Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
> > Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a bomb.
> > Personal opinion:
> > I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
> Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of
> unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
> Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a backup.
> Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt
> Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
Blaine Gabbert went #11 last year, was thrust into the starting role
for the Jags (after the shortened TC due to lock out) and was crushed
so badly MANY believe he's close to done as a NFL QB. Blaine was the
most polished QB in the draft according to Jon Gruden, but I
digress...
I'm trusting we have a coaching staff with enough savvy that,
presuming they believe RT is the man for the future which seems
obvious at this early stage, they methodically groom him for the job.
No stupid shit, like taking a spread-read-option QB like Pat White,
telling him to play pro-set, and casting him to the lions to get
devoured.
> On May 5, 10:10 am, Jimmy July<F...@Fredburger.com> wrote:
>> On 5/4/2012 10:23 PM, t...@aerovons.com wrote:
>>> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a bomb.
>>> Personal opinion:
>>> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
>> Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of
>> unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
>> Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a backup.
>> Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt
>> Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
> Blaine Gabbert went #11 last year, was thrust into the starting role
> for the Jags (after the shortened TC due to lock out) and was crushed
> so badly MANY believe he's close to done as a NFL QB. Blaine was the
> most polished QB in the draft according to Jon Gruden, but I
> digress...
> I'm trusting we have a coaching staff with enough savvy that,
> presuming they believe RT is the man for the future which seems
> obvious at this early stage, they methodically groom him for the job.
> No stupid shit, like taking a spread-read-option QB like Pat White,
> telling him to play pro-set, and casting him to the lions to get
> devoured.
Gabbert's stats compare favorably with Troy Aikman's rookie stats. Not that the result will be the same, just pointing out the danger of hasty judgements. Likewise, we shouldn't make too much Tannehill's initial rookie practice - no pads and the only opposition was a guy waving a broom around.
The big problem in Jacksonville last year is that there was no "Plan B" behind Gabbert. My expectation is that Tannehill will start late in the season, after playoff dreams have died. Even then they can go back to Moore or Garrard if it gets too ugly.
You raise another interesting issue. Texas A&M ran a spread offense. So what does it mean when Tannehill says the Miami playbook is 65-80% the same?
> On 5/4/2012 10:23 PM, t...@aerovons.com wrote:
>> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill
>> today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should
>> have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the
>> middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a
>> bomb.
>> Personal opinion:
>> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the
>> other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think
>> he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
> Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of
> unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
> Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a backup.
> Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt
> Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
I don't believe Hasselbeck had anything like a great year last year - he was maybe slightly better than Matt Moore. Given Tennessee's overall results, I suspect Locker would have been able to grab the starter's job if he had been anywhere near as good as people are going to expect from Tannehill as a #8 pick.
> On May 5, 10:10 am, Jimmy July<F...@Fredburger.com> wrote:
>> On 5/4/2012 10:23 PM, t...@aerovons.com wrote:
>>> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a bomb.
>>> Personal opinion:
>>> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
>> Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of
>> unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
>> Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a backup.
>> Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt
>> Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
> Blaine Gabbert went #11 last year, was thrust into the starting role
> for the Jags (after the shortened TC due to lock out) and was crushed
> so badly MANY believe he's close to done as a NFL QB. Blaine was the
> most polished QB in the draft according to Jon Gruden, but I
> digress...
> I'm trusting we have a coaching staff with enough savvy that,
> presuming they believe RT is the man for the future which seems
> obvious at this early stage, they methodically groom him for the job.
> No stupid shit, like taking a spread-read-option QB like Pat White,
> telling him to play pro-set, and casting him to the lions to get
> devoured.
> TRRT
As I recall, Gabbert was generally perceived a bit of a reach at #11 and I doubt he was a bit familiar with the Jags' offense. I see no reason to link these two guys. If you feel that there's a connection, I would be curious to know what it is. There are plenty of rookie QB's getting thrown to the wolves each year - some of them don't get eaten. I cannot see any way to predict which way it will go for one or another. Matt Moore got sacked quite often last season - maybe that's the key. If Tannehill's mobility doesn't give him an edge, then he shouldn't be played. Then again, with the Human Turnstile retiring, maybe there'll be less in the way of punishment on whomever is under center.
I think you should go with "The Actual RT" as opposed to "The Real RT." That way you could sign your posts "TART."
> > On May 5, 10:10 am, Jimmy July<F...@Fredburger.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/4/2012 10:23 PM, t...@aerovons.com wrote:
> >>> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a bomb.
> >>> Personal opinion:
> >>> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
> >> Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of
> >> unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
> >> Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a backup.
> >> Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt
> >> Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
> > Blaine Gabbert went #11 last year, was thrust into the starting role
> > for the Jags (after the shortened TC due to lock out) and was crushed
> > so badly MANY believe he's close to done as a NFL QB. Blaine was the
> > most polished QB in the draft according to Jon Gruden, but I
> > digress...
> > I'm trusting we have a coaching staff with enough savvy that,
> > presuming they believe RT is the man for the future which seems
> > obvious at this early stage, they methodically groom him for the job.
> > No stupid shit, like taking a spread-read-option QB like Pat White,
> > telling him to play pro-set, and casting him to the lions to get
> > devoured.
> > TRRT
> As I recall, Gabbert was generally perceived a bit of a reach at #11 and
> I doubt he was a bit familiar with the Jags' offense. I see no reason
> to link these two guys. If you feel that there's a connection, I would
> be curious to know what it is.
The point was simply, some QB's, just like fresh, rising dough, can be
ruined beyond fix by poor handling.
> There are plenty of rookie QB's getting
> thrown to the wolves each year - some of them don't get eaten.
Plenty more do. It is a 1 in 50 QB who can make the transition from
college to NFL speed immediately.
I'm just saying I BELIEVE we have coaching staff that is going make
sure
a: They believe imposter RT is "ready"
and
b: They also believe we have a protection scheme that won't get him
killed.
> I cannot
> see any way to predict which way it will go for one or another. Matt
> Moore got sacked quite often last season - maybe that's the key. If
> Tannehill's mobility doesn't give him an edge, then he shouldn't be
> played. Then again, with the Human Turnstile retiring, maybe there'll
> be less in the way of punishment on whomever is under center.
> I think you should go with "The Actual RT" as opposed to "The Real RT."
> That way you could sign your posts "TART."
> On 5/5/2012 12:10 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>> On 5/4/2012 10:23 PM, t...@aerovons.com wrote:
>>> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill
>>> today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should
>>> have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the
>>> middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a
>>> bomb.
>>> Personal opinion:
>>> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the
>>> other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think
>>> he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
>> Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of
>> unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
>> Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a backup.
>> Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt
>> Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
> I don't believe Hasselbeck had anything like a great year last year - he
> was maybe slightly better than Matt Moore.
Now we're into trivia, but Hasselbeck had a QB rating of over 100 in the first month of last season. Then Kenny Britt got hurt, leaving the Titans with a receiving corp that was worse than Miami's looks these days.
That'll be an interesting situation to watch this year. Hasselbeck is old and injury prone, he can't hold up much longer.
> Given Tennessee's overall
> results, I suspect Locker would have been able to grab the starter's job
> if he had been anywhere near as good as people are going to expect from
> Tannehill as a #8 pick.
There's an interesting discussion about expectations surrounding Ryan Tannehill. I'm not a big Peter King fan, but I think he's captured something here:
The Dolphins have sucked for the last decade and a lot of people are expecting Tannehill to make that better IMMEDIATELY. The first time Tannehill throws 2 INTs in one game some fans are going into meltdown mode because their expectations have been shattered. The talk about retiring his number and his future induction to the Hall of Fame needs to stop. It's the time of year when football fans can all be exuberant, but I hope expectations come back a bit by Sept.
> On 5/5/2012 1:43 PM, euphemism wrote:
>> On 5/5/2012 12:10 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2012 10:23 PM, t...@aerovons.com wrote:
>>>> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill
>>>> today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should
>>>> have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the
>>>> middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a
>>>> bomb.
>>>> Personal opinion:
>>>> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the
>>>> other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think
>>>> he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
>>> Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of
>>> unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
>>> Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a backup.
>>> Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt
>>> Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
>> I don't believe Hasselbeck had anything like a great year last year - he
>> was maybe slightly better than Matt Moore.
> Now we're into trivia, but Hasselbeck had a QB rating of over 100 in the
> first month of last season. Then Kenny Britt got hurt, leaving the
> Titans with a receiving corp that was worse than Miami's looks these days.
> That'll be an interesting situation to watch this year. Hasselbeck is
> old and injury prone, he can't hold up much longer.
>> Given Tennessee's overall
>> results, I suspect Locker would have been able to grab the starter's job
>> if he had been anywhere near as good as people are going to expect from
>> Tannehill as a #8 pick.
> There's an interesting discussion about expectations surrounding Ryan
> Tannehill. I'm not a big Peter King fan, but I think he's captured
> something here:
> The Dolphins have sucked for the last decade and a lot of people are
> expecting Tannehill to make that better IMMEDIATELY. The first time
> Tannehill throws 2 INTs in one game some fans are going into meltdown
> mode because their expectations have been shattered. The talk about
> retiring his number and his future induction to the Hall of Fame needs
> to stop. It's the time of year when football fans can all be exuberant,
> but I hope expectations come back a bit by Sept.
Given the level of anxiety among so many fans about even making Tannehill the #8 pick, I'm going to say that fans who dump on him based on his early work are probably being hypocritical.
I felt like there were people who gave up on Henne before he ever really had much of a chance. I believe to this day that he's better than many fans seem to believe.
The comments by Ross are being blown way out of proportion. Granted, Ross is an idiot, but his exuberance in greeting Tannehill and saying the he HOPED that someday in the future they'd being retiring his jersey don't qualify as a prediction... just silly talk that is being stretched beyond its original meaning.
Based on the "book" on Tannehill, he WILL be tossing some INT's. As with all QB's he'll be under pressure to get that under control. If he doesn't, well... then he's just another bust. Surely most fans will give him a honeymoon... except maybe Tom? ;-)
> Given the level of anxiety among so many fans about even making
> Tannehill the #8 pick, I'm going to say that fans who dump on him based
> on his early work are probably being hypocritical.
> I felt like there were people who gave up on Henne before he ever really
> had much of a chance. I believe to this day that he's better than many
> fans seem to believe.
Regardless of what any fan thinks or wants, Tannehill is going to get 3 years to prove what he can do. Given that, I don't see any particular hurry to judge him either way. Sit back and enjoy the ride.
Tom started this thread off by accusing anyone who thinks Tannehill wont start this year of being delusional. I'd say that delusional is defined, at this point, by insisting you know exactly how this is all going to fall out. So I'm not going to do it. Let's just be hopeful.
> > On May 5, 10:10 am, Jimmy July<F...@Fredburger.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/4/2012 10:23 PM, t...@aerovons.com wrote:
> >>> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a bomb.
> >>> Personal opinion:
> >>> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
> >> Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of
> >> unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
> >> Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a backup.
> >> Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt
> >> Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
> > Blaine Gabbert went #11 last year, was thrust into the starting role
> > for the Jags (after the shortened TC due to lock out) and was crushed
> > so badly MANY believe he's close to done as a NFL QB. Blaine was the
> > most polished QB in the draft according to Jon Gruden, but I
> > digress...
> > I'm trusting we have a coaching staff with enough savvy that,
> > presuming they believe RT is the man for the future which seems
> > obvious at this early stage, they methodically groom him for the job.
> > No stupid shit, like taking a spread-read-option QB like Pat White,
> > telling him to play pro-set, and casting him to the lions to get
> > devoured.
> > TRRT
> As I recall, Gabbert was generally perceived a bit of a reach at #11 and
> I doubt he was a bit familiar with the Jags' offense. I see no reason
> to link these two guys. If you feel that there's a connection, I would
> be curious to know what it is. There are plenty of rookie QB's getting
> thrown to the wolves each year - some of them don't get eaten. I cannot
> see any way to predict which way it will go for one or another. Matt
> Moore got sacked quite often last season - maybe that's the key. If
> Tannehill's mobility doesn't give him an edge, then he shouldn't be
> played. Then again, with the Human Turnstile retiring, maybe there'll
> be less in the way of punishment on whomever is under center.
> I think you should go with "The Actual RT" as opposed to "The Real RT."
> That way you could sign your posts "TART."
I think rt should consider FART. That could be First Assigned R T, or
maybe Fantastic Accountant R T. Yeah, he should go with FART.
> > On 5/5/2012 12:10 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
> >> On 5/4/2012 10:23 PM, t...@aerovons.com wrote:
> >>> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill
> >>> today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should
> >>> have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the
> >>> middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a
> >>> bomb.
> >>> Personal opinion:
> >>> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the
> >>> other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think
> >>> he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
> >> Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of
> >> unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
> >> Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a backup.
> >> Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt
> >> Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
> > I don't believe Hasselbeck had anything like a great year last year - he
> > was maybe slightly better than Matt Moore.
> Now we're into trivia, but Hasselbeck had a QB rating of over 100 in the
> first month of last season. Then Kenny Britt got hurt, leaving the
> Titans with a receiving corp that was worse than Miami's looks these days.
> That'll be an interesting situation to watch this year. Hasselbeck is
> old and injury prone, he can't hold up much longer.
> > Given Tennessee's overall
> > results, I suspect Locker would have been able to grab the starter's job
> > if he had been anywhere near as good as people are going to expect from
> > Tannehill as a #8 pick.
> There's an interesting discussion about expectations surrounding Ryan
> Tannehill. I'm not a big Peter King fan, but I think he's captured
> something here:
> The Dolphins have sucked for the last decade and a lot of people are
> expecting Tannehill to make that better IMMEDIATELY. The first time
> Tannehill throws 2 INTs in one game some fans are going into meltdown
> mode because their expectations have been shattered. The talk about
> retiring his number and his future induction to the Hall of Fame needs
> to stop. It's the time of year when football fans can all be exuberant,
> but I hope expectations come back a bit by Sept.
I've been impressed with Tannehill in interviews. This kid EXPECTS
good things to happen. I really like his attitude. Recently we've
seen John Beck, who was a really nice kid. Chad Henne, who didn't
link more than 2 or 3 words together at a time. Tannehill impresses
me as someone who really understands the opportunity before him and
what it will take to suceed. None of that means he'll ever be a good
NFL QB, but it won't surprise me to see him become a very good NFL
QB.
> On May 5, 7:19 pm, Jimmy July<F...@Fredburger.com> wrote:
>> On 5/5/2012 1:43 PM, euphemism wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2012 12:10 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2012 10:23 PM, t...@aerovons.com wrote:
>>>>> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill
>>>>> today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should
>>>>> have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the
>>>>> middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a
>>>>> bomb.
>>>>> Personal opinion:
>>>>> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the
>>>>> other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think
>>>>> he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
>>>> Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of
>>>> unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
>>>> Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a backup.
>>>> Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt
>>>> Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
>>> I don't believe Hasselbeck had anything like a great year last year - he
>>> was maybe slightly better than Matt Moore.
>> Now we're into trivia, but Hasselbeck had a QB rating of over 100 in the
>> first month of last season. Then Kenny Britt got hurt, leaving the
>> Titans with a receiving corp that was worse than Miami's looks these days.
>> That'll be an interesting situation to watch this year. Hasselbeck is
>> old and injury prone, he can't hold up much longer.
>>> Given Tennessee's overall
>>> results, I suspect Locker would have been able to grab the starter's job
>>> if he had been anywhere near as good as people are going to expect from
>>> Tannehill as a #8 pick.
>> There's an interesting discussion about expectations surrounding Ryan
>> Tannehill. I'm not a big Peter King fan, but I think he's captured
>> something here:
>> The Dolphins have sucked for the last decade and a lot of people are
>> expecting Tannehill to make that better IMMEDIATELY. The first time
>> Tannehill throws 2 INTs in one game some fans are going into meltdown
>> mode because their expectations have been shattered. The talk about
>> retiring his number and his future induction to the Hall of Fame needs
>> to stop. It's the time of year when football fans can all be exuberant,
>> but I hope expectations come back a bit by Sept.
> I've been impressed with Tannehill in interviews. This kid EXPECTS
> good things to happen. I really like his attitude. Recently we've
> seen John Beck, who was a really nice kid. Chad Henne, who didn't
> link more than 2 or 3 words together at a time. Tannehill impresses
> me as someone who really understands the opportunity before him and
> what it will take to suceed. None of that means he'll ever be a good
> NFL QB, but it won't surprise me to see him become a very good NFL
> QB.
All true. Also, he IS physically capable. Big, strong arm, accurate.
For some reason, I had him pegged as a possible Dolphin draft pick back in Sept of last year, even before the "Suck for Luck" thing was in full swing. For that reason, I watched the hell out of him in college. I saved the Oklahoma State, Baylor and Missouri games on DVR and I've watched them several times apiece. You can save yourself some trouble (and a certain amount of frustration) by just looking at his stats. His completion percentage was unimpressive, yardage was no big deal, TD/INT ratio was not what you'd expect for a guy who's going to have a good pro career. Every time I tried to explain those facts away, I'd listen to myself and say "That sounds like an excuse."
But yeah, he's got great physical skill, he seems like a bright guy with a good attitude. Maybe Texas A&M just didn't have the talent around him that would allow Tannehill to excel against the schedule they played. I hope that's the case. There are some things I saw in the games that convince me it's not crazy to believe that's true. I'm just not going to repeat them because they sound like excuses. Here's one" Texas A&M dropped a lot of balls. Another: I watched Jeff Fuller - TWICE - just stand there and watch the DB make an INT when he could have at least knocked it down. See? It sounds weak.
This is my explanation as to why I was unenthused with RT at #8 in the first round. I don't care to repeat this a lot because what's done is done. I've seen people bitch about their displeasure with a QB pick for years after the selection, I don't intend to do that; it doesn't benefit ANYONE. I just hope I'm wrong. I'm hoping those weak-assed things that sound like excuses to me are really true. It could happen.
> On 5/6/2012 9:00 PM, tgowan wrote:
>> On May 5, 7:19 pm, Jimmy July<F...@Fredburger.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2012 1:43 PM, euphemism wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/2012 12:10 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2012 10:23 PM, t...@aerovons.com wrote:
>>>>>> Local reports are pretty positive based on what they say of Tannehill
>>>>>> today. Very strong arm, very accurate, one interception that should
>>>>>> have been caught. Hitting people in the numbers sideline and over the
>>>>>> middle, hitting some unknown receiver halfway across the field with a
>>>>>> bomb.
>>>>>> Personal opinion:
>>>>>> I think anyone who believes they are going sit this guy behind the
>>>>>> other two castoffs for a year or two is living in dreamland. I think
>>>>>> he'll be starting before the season is over. Just a hunch.
>>>>> Is this intended as a vote of confidence in Tannehill or a vote of
>>>>> unconfidence in the other guys? Could be both.
>>>>> Jake Locker was drafted 8th last year and spent the season as a
>>>>> backup.
>>>>> Tannehill wont do the same because the Dolphins don't have a Matt
>>>>> Hasselback. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the truth.
>>>> I don't believe Hasselbeck had anything like a great year last year
>>>> - he
>>>> was maybe slightly better than Matt Moore.
>>> Now we're into trivia, but Hasselbeck had a QB rating of over 100 in the
>>> first month of last season. Then Kenny Britt got hurt, leaving the
>>> Titans with a receiving corp that was worse than Miami's looks these
>>> days.
>>> That'll be an interesting situation to watch this year. Hasselbeck is
>>> old and injury prone, he can't hold up much longer.
>>>> Given Tennessee's overall
>>>> results, I suspect Locker would have been able to grab the starter's
>>>> job
>>>> if he had been anywhere near as good as people are going to expect from
>>>> Tannehill as a #8 pick.
>>> There's an interesting discussion about expectations surrounding Ryan
>>> Tannehill. I'm not a big Peter King fan, but I think he's captured
>>> something here:
>>> The Dolphins have sucked for the last decade and a lot of people are
>>> expecting Tannehill to make that better IMMEDIATELY. The first time
>>> Tannehill throws 2 INTs in one game some fans are going into meltdown
>>> mode because their expectations have been shattered. The talk about
>>> retiring his number and his future induction to the Hall of Fame needs
>>> to stop. It's the time of year when football fans can all be exuberant,
>>> but I hope expectations come back a bit by Sept.
>> I've been impressed with Tannehill in interviews. This kid EXPECTS
>> good things to happen. I really like his attitude. Recently we've
>> seen John Beck, who was a really nice kid. Chad Henne, who didn't
>> link more than 2 or 3 words together at a time. Tannehill impresses
>> me as someone who really understands the opportunity before him and
>> what it will take to suceed. None of that means he'll ever be a good
>> NFL QB, but it won't surprise me to see him become a very good NFL
>> QB.
> All true. Also, he IS physically capable. Big, strong arm, accurate.
> For some reason, I had him pegged as a possible Dolphin draft pick back
> in Sept of last year, even before the "Suck for Luck" thing was in full
> swing. For that reason, I watched the hell out of him in college. I
> saved the Oklahoma State, Baylor and Missouri games on DVR and I've
> watched them several times apiece. You can save yourself some trouble
> (and a certain amount of frustration) by just looking at his stats. His
> completion percentage was unimpressive, yardage was no big deal, TD/INT
> ratio was not what you'd expect for a guy who's going to have a good pro
> career. Every time I tried to explain those facts away, I'd listen to
> myself and say "That sounds like an excuse."
> But yeah, he's got great physical skill, he seems like a bright guy with
> a good attitude. Maybe Texas A&M just didn't have the talent around him
> that would allow Tannehill to excel against the schedule they played. I
> hope that's the case. There are some things I saw in the games that
> convince me it's not crazy to believe that's true. I'm just not going to
> repeat them because they sound like excuses. Here's one" Texas A&M
> dropped a lot of balls. Another: I watched Jeff Fuller - TWICE - just
> stand there and watch the DB make an INT when he could have at least
> knocked it down. See? It sounds weak.
> This is my explanation as to why I was unenthused with RT at #8 in the
> first round. I don't care to repeat this a lot because what's done is
> done. I've seen people bitch about their displeasure with a QB pick for
> years after the selection, I don't intend to do that; it doesn't benefit
> ANYONE. I just hope I'm wrong. I'm hoping those weak-assed things that
> sound like excuses to me are really true. It could happen.
> He seems like a good kid, I hope he succeeds.
I guess it might be safe to predict failure - certainly that's where the numbers are. I really don't know anything for sure about Tannehill - I had to be careful to spell his name right when we all first started exchanging posts with him in the mix.
A year or two ago I recall Henne saying a lot of the right things and I believe he was often described as being a dedicated student of the game and being the last guy to leave at night. Me, I still think he's going to show somebody something, if he gets the right chance. That makes me the last of those Mohicans.
It's pleasing to read good words about him - but don't you expect that will be the case throughout the off season? Once we see him in the exhibition games, we'll probably have some idea what he's got. Naturally, if he shows well, people will say those games mean nothing which is, of course, true.
Here's to hope springing eternal and the idea that Vandal might suffer a real stroke while jacking off.
> It's pleasing to read good words about him - but don't you expect that
> will be the case throughout the off season? Once we see him in the
> exhibition games, we'll probably have some idea what he's got.
> Naturally, if he shows well, people will say those games mean nothing
> which is, of course, true.
Sure. We read lots of glowing stuff about John Avery. That didn't blow up until after a few preseason games. It's the same everywhere, every year. Doesn't mean much.
On May 7, 9:04 pm, Jimmy July <F...@Fredburger.com> wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 6:31 PM, euphemism wrote:
> > I guess it might be safe to predict failure - certainly that's where the
> > numbers are.
> And that got me thinking: isn't that true for most draft picks? isn't
> failure generally more likely than success?
> I'm willing to bet on at least Robert Gallery level success for Matt
> Kalil. Beyond that, I'm keeping my money.
I would say yes, that failure is the more likely outcome for all picks
- but then comes the debate about what constitutes failure. It's easy
to point at Ryan Leaf and say "That's failure." It's less easy to
point at Ted Ginn and say "failure." I would point at Cameron and say
"Failure."
My guess is that of the roughly 250 players drafted each year, that
less than half actually make a team. Certainly less than half will
have some sort of real noteworthy impact - meaning they won't be stars
and will labor in relative obscurity.
Failure is a tough word and it's also not a players "fault" if a team
picks him too high. Then again, I cannot recall a player ever
attempting to refuse a high slot and saying that he wants to go later,
thank you very much.
Yatil Green was a failure in the NFL - but most would say it was
injury that done for him. He was a failure nonetheless. Sorry
Yatil.
>> I guess it might be safe to predict failure - certainly that's where the
>> numbers are.
> And that got me thinking: isn't that true for most draft picks? isn't
> failure generally more likely than success?
> I'm willing to bet on at least Robert Gallery level success for Matt
> Kalil. Beyond that, I'm keeping my money.
And as we've discussed some (too much?), some positions (e.g., OT) seem to have a better success rate than others (e.g., QB). Why, I don't know. And I don't know about success/failure rate, but I'm confident the failure rate is higher for 7th-rounders than 1st . . . some defense of the scouts.
As for RT, the most common knock is the mental part - bad decisions with the ball. Can that be coached out of him or will he be like many others and never get his data-processing to catch up with his athleticism? I don't know that either. I've read once - so I don't put much faith in it - he wasn't a 4Q QB in Texas. No comebacks against good teams. Is that due to poor supporting cast? If it *IS* true, Miami fans have seen this show many times already.
This doesn't mean I'm confident in his failure. I have no choice but to be optimistic. I do, however, have some concerns over the mental part of his game. THAT is what will determine is likelihood of success.
> On May 7, 9:04 pm, Jimmy July<F...@Fredburger.com> wrote:
>> On 5/7/2012 6:31 PM, euphemism wrote:
>>> I guess it might be safe to predict failure - certainly that's where the
>>> numbers are.
>> And that got me thinking: isn't that true for most draft picks? isn't
>> failure generally more likely than success?
>> I'm willing to bet on at least Robert Gallery level success for Matt
>> Kalil. Beyond that, I'm keeping my money.
> I would say yes, that failure is the more likely outcome for all picks
> - but then comes the debate about what constitutes failure. It's easy
> to point at Ryan Leaf and say "That's failure." It's less easy to
> point at Ted Ginn and say "failure." I would point at Cameron and say
> "Failure."
> My guess is that of the roughly 250 players drafted each year, that
> less than half actually make a team. Certainly less than half will
> have some sort of real noteworthy impact - meaning they won't be stars
> and will labor in relative obscurity.
> Failure is a tough word and it's also not a players "fault" if a team
> picks him too high. Then again, I cannot recall a player ever
> attempting to refuse a high slot and saying that he wants to go later,
> thank you very much.
> Yatil Green was a failure in the NFL - but most would say it was
> injury that done for him. He was a failure nonetheless. Sorry
> Yatil.
A quick and dirty criteria for failure is 'where are they at the start of year 2?' No, that won't capture ALL failures since it allows a high pick (Gholston) to ride the bench and be a 'success.' But if a player isn't good enough to even make a squad in year 2, there is no debating the failure label. (I know, an undrafted FA and his family may consider the one year as a 'success.')
Yatil Green is a good example of a player who, arguably, didn't 'fail' because he never got the chance. And any high pick QB that found himself behind Farve or Manning could be considered a failure through no fault of his own. Nonetheless, 'not in the league,' would be a pretty inconsistent indication.
OT, but I wonder on occasion if some teams don't have a higher 'success' rate than others. Do some teams 'find' very few good rookies every year while another team 'finds' >50% of rookies make the team? Or are all teams bunched in the luck-of-the-draw middle?
> On 5/8/2012 7:36 AM, euphem...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > On May 7, 9:04 pm, Jimmy July<F...@Fredburger.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/7/2012 6:31 PM, euphemism wrote:
> >>> I guess it might be safe to predict failure - certainly that's where the
> >>> numbers are.
> >> And that got me thinking: isn't that true for most draft picks? isn't
> >> failure generally more likely than success?
> >> I'm willing to bet on at least Robert Gallery level success for Matt
> >> Kalil. Beyond that, I'm keeping my money.
> > I would say yes, that failure is the more likely outcome for all picks
> > - but then comes the debate about what constitutes failure. It's easy
> > to point at Ryan Leaf and say "That's failure." It's less easy to
> > point at Ted Ginn and say "failure." I would point at Cameron and say
> > "Failure."
> > My guess is that of the roughly 250 players drafted each year, that
> > less than half actually make a team. Certainly less than half will
> > have some sort of real noteworthy impact - meaning they won't be stars
> > and will labor in relative obscurity.
> > Failure is a tough word and it's also not a players "fault" if a team
> > picks him too high. Then again, I cannot recall a player ever
> > attempting to refuse a high slot and saying that he wants to go later,
> > thank you very much.
> > Yatil Green was a failure in the NFL - but most would say it was
> > injury that done for him. He was a failure nonetheless. Sorry
> > Yatil.
> A quick and dirty criteria for failure is 'where are they at the start
> of year 2?' No, that won't capture ALL failures since it allows a high
> pick (Gholston) to ride the bench and be a 'success.' But if a player
> isn't good enough to even make a squad in year 2, there is no debating
> the failure label. (I know, an undrafted FA and his family may consider
> the one year as a 'success.')
> Yatil Green is a good example of a player who, arguably, didn't 'fail'
> because he never got the chance. And any high pick QB that found
> himself behind Farve or Manning could be considered a failure through no
> fault of his own. Nonetheless, 'not in the league,' would be a pretty
> inconsistent indication.
> OT, but I wonder on occasion if some teams don't have a higher 'success'
> rate than others. Do some teams 'find' very few good rookies every year
> while another team 'finds' >50% of rookies make the team? Or are all
> teams bunched in the luck-of-the-draw middle?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
It might be that someone has attempted to analyze the historical draft
data - I have seen numbers thrown out in the past. Again, the problem
comes in assigning players grades or outcomes that address the
questions you want answered. I can safely predict controversy over
the methodology.
In general I think that failure (i.e. not meeting expectation) is a
more common outcome.
It is inevitable that there will be many players for whom it will be
difficult to assign a lable.
A perfect example is Colt McCoy. Here's a kid that was a 3rd round
pick, exceeded expectations (IMHO) and yet has clearly lost his job
and his team to an unproven rookie. If you're a Cleveland fan, McCoy
may be a lost 3rd round pick. Then again, maybe his performances in
real games brings them an even higher pick in return. Then again, his
father's butt-insky regarding the concussion controversy (if I were
his dad I'd do the same) may have made Colt less interesting. My bet
is that the Browns are forced to release him or take a garbage round
pick in compensation.
We could spend all day offering up difficult assessments. For many,
the jury has to stay out for years.
How about Sanchez? A 1st round pick who definitely has been a
disappointment in many ways. Failure? Not just yet... but it's
coming. The bar is high for 1st round draft picks - especially QB's.
It would be a daunting task to grade players and if you're wanting to
rate teams, then you need to go "big picture" and the score should
capture steals and deals that fall outside the draft. That includes
finding players like Wake and Bess (for example).
How much free time do you have to devote to the project?
> On 5/7/2012 10:04 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>> On 5/7/2012 6:31 PM, euphemism wrote:
>>> I guess it might be safe to predict failure - certainly that's where the
>>> numbers are.
>> And that got me thinking: isn't that true for most draft picks? isn't
>> failure generally more likely than success?
>> I'm willing to bet on at least Robert Gallery level success for Matt
>> Kalil. Beyond that, I'm keeping my money.
> And as we've discussed some (too much?), some positions (e.g., OT) seem
> to have a better success rate than others (e.g., QB). Why, I don't know.
> And I don't know about success/failure rate, but I'm confident the
> failure rate is higher for 7th-rounders than 1st . . . some defense of
> the scouts.
> As for RT, the most common knock is the mental part - bad decisions with
> the ball. Can that be coached out of him or will he be like many others
> and never get his data-processing to catch up with his athleticism? I
> don't know that either. I've read once - so I don't put much faith in it
> - he wasn't a 4Q QB in Texas. No comebacks against good teams. Is that
> due to poor supporting cast? If it *IS* true, Miami fans have seen this
> show many times already.
> This doesn't mean I'm confident in his failure. I have no choice but to
> be optimistic. I do, however, have some concerns over the mental part of
> his game. THAT is what will determine is likelihood of success.
Well said. Everything's a gamble, in the end. This one could pay off.
> On May 8, 7:03 am, J Lunis<luni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 7:36 AM, euphem...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>> On May 7, 9:04 pm, Jimmy July<F...@Fredburger.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2012 6:31 PM, euphemism wrote:
>>>>> I guess it might be safe to predict failure - certainly that's where the
>>>>> numbers are.
>>>> And that got me thinking: isn't that true for most draft picks? isn't
>>>> failure generally more likely than success?
>>>> I'm willing to bet on at least Robert Gallery level success for Matt
>>>> Kalil. Beyond that, I'm keeping my money.
>>> I would say yes, that failure is the more likely outcome for all picks
>>> - but then comes the debate about what constitutes failure. It's easy
>>> to point at Ryan Leaf and say "That's failure." It's less easy to
>>> point at Ted Ginn and say "failure." I would point at Cameron and say
>>> "Failure."
>>> My guess is that of the roughly 250 players drafted each year, that
>>> less than half actually make a team. Certainly less than half will
>>> have some sort of real noteworthy impact - meaning they won't be stars
>>> and will labor in relative obscurity.
>>> Failure is a tough word and it's also not a players "fault" if a team
>>> picks him too high. Then again, I cannot recall a player ever
>>> attempting to refuse a high slot and saying that he wants to go later,
>>> thank you very much.
>>> Yatil Green was a failure in the NFL - but most would say it was
>>> injury that done for him. He was a failure nonetheless. Sorry
>>> Yatil.
>> A quick and dirty criteria for failure is 'where are they at the start
>> of year 2?' No, that won't capture ALL failures since it allows a high
>> pick (Gholston) to ride the bench and be a 'success.' But if a player
>> isn't good enough to even make a squad in year 2, there is no debating
>> the failure label. (I know, an undrafted FA and his family may consider
>> the one year as a 'success.')
>> Yatil Green is a good example of a player who, arguably, didn't 'fail'
>> because he never got the chance. And any high pick QB that found
>> himself behind Farve or Manning could be considered a failure through no
>> fault of his own. Nonetheless, 'not in the league,' would be a pretty
>> inconsistent indication.
>> OT, but I wonder on occasion if some teams don't have a higher 'success'
>> rate than others. Do some teams 'find' very few good rookies every year
>> while another team 'finds'>50% of rookies make the team? Or are all
>> teams bunched in the luck-of-the-draw middle?- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> It might be that someone has attempted to analyze the historical draft
> data - I have seen numbers thrown out in the past. Again, the problem
> comes in assigning players grades or outcomes that address the
> questions you want answered. I can safely predict controversy over
> the methodology.
> In general I think that failure (i.e. not meeting expectation) is a
> more common outcome.
> It is inevitable that there will be many players for whom it will be
> difficult to assign a lable.
> A perfect example is Colt McCoy. Here's a kid that was a 3rd round
> pick, exceeded expectations (IMHO) and yet has clearly lost his job
> and his team to an unproven rookie. If you're a Cleveland fan, McCoy
> may be a lost 3rd round pick. Then again, maybe his performances in
> real games brings them an even higher pick in return. Then again, his
> father's butt-insky regarding the concussion controversy (if I were
> his dad I'd do the same) may have made Colt less interesting. My bet
> is that the Browns are forced to release him or take a garbage round
> pick in compensation.
> We could spend all day offering up difficult assessments. For many,
> the jury has to stay out for years.
> How about Sanchez? A 1st round pick who definitely has been a
> disappointment in many ways. Failure? Not just yet... but it's
> coming. The bar is high for 1st round draft picks - especially QB's.
> It would be a daunting task to grade players and if you're wanting to
> rate teams, then you need to go "big picture" and the score should
> capture steals and deals that fall outside the draft. That includes
> finding players like Wake and Bess (for example).
> How much free time do you have to devote to the project?
free time? I've heard of such stuff as that. Experience proves it to be no more realistic than ghosts or vampires.
I'll tweak my initial criteria though, as you say, there is no vague idea how to evaluate.
1) where are they (limited to 1st 3 rounds) at the start of year 2? If the answer is 'not in the NFL,' that is a failure.
2) for 1st rounders, they should start by year 3. If not - failure.
This admittedly will not pick up the subtle middle-ground stuff, but I think anyone failing those two criteria can reasonably be called 'failures.' Yeah, a number of HOF'ers would have 'failed' in year 3, but remember, this is quick and dirty.
> On 5/8/2012 12:47 PM, euphem...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> On May 8, 7:03 am, J Lunis<luni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2012 7:36 AM, euphem...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>>> On May 7, 9:04 pm, Jimmy July<F...@Fredburger.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2012 6:31 PM, euphemism wrote:
>>>>>> I guess it might be safe to predict failure - certainly that's
>>>>>> where the
>>>>>> numbers are.
>>>>> And that got me thinking: isn't that true for most draft picks? isn't
>>>>> failure generally more likely than success?
>>>>> I'm willing to bet on at least Robert Gallery level success for Matt
>>>>> Kalil. Beyond that, I'm keeping my money.
>>>> I would say yes, that failure is the more likely outcome for all picks
>>>> - but then comes the debate about what constitutes failure. It's easy
>>>> to point at Ryan Leaf and say "That's failure." It's less easy to
>>>> point at Ted Ginn and say "failure." I would point at Cameron and say
>>>> "Failure."
>>>> My guess is that of the roughly 250 players drafted each year, that
>>>> less than half actually make a team. Certainly less than half will
>>>> have some sort of real noteworthy impact - meaning they won't be stars
>>>> and will labor in relative obscurity.
>>>> Failure is a tough word and it's also not a players "fault" if a team
>>>> picks him too high. Then again, I cannot recall a player ever
>>>> attempting to refuse a high slot and saying that he wants to go later,
>>>> thank you very much.
>>>> Yatil Green was a failure in the NFL - but most would say it was
>>>> injury that done for him. He was a failure nonetheless. Sorry
>>>> Yatil.
>>> A quick and dirty criteria for failure is 'where are they at the start
>>> of year 2?' No, that won't capture ALL failures since it allows a high
>>> pick (Gholston) to ride the bench and be a 'success.' But if a player
>>> isn't good enough to even make a squad in year 2, there is no debating
>>> the failure label. (I know, an undrafted FA and his family may consider
>>> the one year as a 'success.')
>>> Yatil Green is a good example of a player who, arguably, didn't 'fail'
>>> because he never got the chance. And any high pick QB that found
>>> himself behind Farve or Manning could be considered a failure through no
>>> fault of his own. Nonetheless, 'not in the league,' would be a pretty
>>> inconsistent indication.
>>> OT, but I wonder on occasion if some teams don't have a higher 'success'
>>> rate than others. Do some teams 'find' very few good rookies every year
>>> while another team 'finds'>50% of rookies make the team? Or are all
>>> teams bunched in the luck-of-the-draw middle?- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> It might be that someone has attempted to analyze the historical draft
>> data - I have seen numbers thrown out in the past. Again, the problem
>> comes in assigning players grades or outcomes that address the
>> questions you want answered. I can safely predict controversy over
>> the methodology.
>> In general I think that failure (i.e. not meeting expectation) is a
>> more common outcome.
>> It is inevitable that there will be many players for whom it will be
>> difficult to assign a lable.
>> A perfect example is Colt McCoy. Here's a kid that was a 3rd round
>> pick, exceeded expectations (IMHO) and yet has clearly lost his job
>> and his team to an unproven rookie. If you're a Cleveland fan, McCoy
>> may be a lost 3rd round pick. Then again, maybe his performances in
>> real games brings them an even higher pick in return. Then again, his
>> father's butt-insky regarding the concussion controversy (if I were
>> his dad I'd do the same) may have made Colt less interesting. My bet
>> is that the Browns are forced to release him or take a garbage round
>> pick in compensation.
>> We could spend all day offering up difficult assessments. For many,
>> the jury has to stay out for years.
>> How about Sanchez? A 1st round pick who definitely has been a
>> disappointment in many ways. Failure? Not just yet... but it's
>> coming. The bar is high for 1st round draft picks - especially QB's.
>> It would be a daunting task to grade players and if you're wanting to
>> rate teams, then you need to go "big picture" and the score should
>> capture steals and deals that fall outside the draft. That includes
>> finding players like Wake and Bess (for example).
>> How much free time do you have to devote to the project?
> free time? I've heard of such stuff as that. Experience proves it to be
> no more realistic than ghosts or vampires.
> I'll tweak my initial criteria though, as you say, there is no vague
> idea how to evaluate.
> 1) where are they (limited to 1st 3 rounds) at the start of year 2? If
> the answer is 'not in the NFL,' that is a failure.
> 2) for 1st rounders, they should start by year 3. If not - failure.
> This admittedly will not pick up the subtle middle-ground stuff, but I
> think anyone failing those two criteria can reasonably be called
> 'failures.' Yeah, a number of HOF'ers would have 'failed' in year 3, but
> remember, this is quick and dirty.
I think that rule has to be that there are no rules.
To really understand how effective the draft is, you need to consider every round and all of the players who are NOT picked as well. No formula is going to account for all players - you mentioned Rodgers. More than a few good players have been stuck behind an immovable talent. Then there are all the excellent players who weren't drafted at all.
If you really want a true assessment of the draft, you count all the results and you really need to go player by player. The best results would rely on each team's fans and would preclude people from voting on a player unless they actually knew about him (unlike the Pro Bowl). A five point scale on the player's contribution, considering his draft cost would be sufficient.
