He plays almost exclusively out of the shotgun at OSU. He has not played in an NFL style of offense. Weeden does not have the experience that Tannehill has in an NFL style offense. His mechanics from under center are years behind Tannehill and he does not have the arm strength nor mobility that Tannehill has. There is a reason that every single expert thinks Tannehill is the superior prospect, they aren't just making this stuff up as they go. This kind of evaluation comes from several years of expertise.
Those "people" also speak highly of Weeden and have mentioned numerous times that if it wasn't for the age concern he'd easily be a Top 15 selection. Funny you mention Tannehill running an "NFL Style Offense" ..... In both of the following links from DraftAce.com who broke down game film vs. some of his more top flight opponents (Arkansas, LSU) it would appear Tannehill was limited in his throws because of glaring weaknesses hitting receivers in stride. The majority of his pass completions were comebacks and curls to the likes of Fuller and Swope and rarely going over the middle.http://draftace.com/blog/2012/02/19/in- ... ll-vs-lsu/http://draftace.com/blog/2012/02/20/bre ... -arkansas/
The West Coast Offense needs a high degree of accuracy hitting moving targets to be successful, not just pitch and catch at a pro day.
As far as Weeden being mature, the guy scrapped football once to play baseball. He took the money instead of developing in college. You may not question it, but I question this kids maturity. Just because he's five years older than all of the other prospects doesn't mean he's more mature, it only means he's older. As far as the mental aspect like you said, I agree 100% that he will need some time to get up to the speed of the NFL and to learn a Pro Style offense. I think that time frame will be anywhere between 3 to 4 yeras.
How do you know he "took the money"? The guy signed with Okie St. AS A BASEBALL PLAYER until the Yankess came into the picture. You're going to question his maturity to live a dream because of that? How pretentious.
Look, I understand you like Weeden. I think he is a great gamble to take in the 2nd or 3rd round, but I don't think he'll get that far. But certainly you can at least see his downside. He's got a lot of things working against him. His age is by far the biggest to many. For me the biggest thing is he likely wouldn't beat out Moore or Garrard for the starting job this season. Maybe not even in 2013. I would like Weeden a whole lot more if I thought he could start right away, but if he isn't going to start until after he's 30, then that is a deal breaker for me. If he gets his first start at 30, then that means we likely won't develop until he's 31-33 years old. By that time we'll be starting to draft prospects to develop behind him because he'll be retiring in a few more years when he's 35-37 more than likely.
I'm well aware of the risks of drafting him because of his age. My point in disagreeing with your post was because you were crusading against something that wasn't gonna happen i.e. Weeden getting drafted at #8. He does have tremendous value at the backside of the first round and into the 2nd. You have absolutely no way to legitimately quantify whether or not Weeden can or cannot beat out anybody nor do I even begin to understand where you get this self-imposed matrix of 3-4 years to develop into a starter.
So if Tannehill and Weeden are both likely sitting on the bench for a year, I'd rather have Tannehill. He is younger, faster, stronger, and already has experience in a West Coast style of offense. He did spend time as a receiver, but he wasn't practicing as a receiver. He only played receiver during walk throughs and games. During the week he was developing as a quarterback. He worked out as a quarterback, he studied film as a quarterback, and he took practice snaps as a quarterback. Make no mistake, Tannehill has four years of experience developing as a quarterback. If anything I think his time when he played receiver has given him a deeper understanding of routes and timing. I think Tannehill has greater upside than Weeden, that is why I like him over Weeden.
Weeden measurables outside of the obvious athleticism, scored just as well if not better than Tanny. I wish I could find the post, but if anyone has KC Joyner ESPN Insider can you post the article breaking them down?
Weeden also didn't fall apart vs. better opponents.
As for the long winded shot, I prefer thorough. If you were a little more thorough you'd understand that Tannehill hasn't just been a quarterback for two years like some misinformed people think. You'd also understand that spread quarterbacks like Weeden typically take longer to develop than guys who have played in a Pro Style offense.
It's funny how you say that, but then in the same breath forget to mention that Weeden didn't always play in a spread offense prior to starting at Okie St. Not to mention you wanna talk about the little things off the field, Weeden was front and center when they went to hire a new offensive coordinator. They actually included him in their search.