i remember saying last year at draft time that the reason it would be smart to slightly reach for Tannehill at pick #8 was because if he returned to A&M for his senior year he would be the #1 pick in the 2013 draft and more than likely out of our reach. And that's what draft analysts are saying now. That this draft is weak at quarterback and that Ryan would have graded out much higher than Geno Smith or Matt Barkley......and that Tannehill would be headed to the Chiefs with the top pick in April.

I feel great knowing that, like we're ahead of the curve and instead of having to blow a pick on a signal caller this year and then wait til he grows as a rookie again.....thats process is all over now and we can spend all of our picks at positions that make quicker impacts in the NFL. And now we build around our franchise QB.

That was a smart move last year by Ireland and it sets him up in good shape this offseason.

You're assuming he would've played lights out.

Anything can happen. Look what happened to Barkley's draft stock this year.

Even if he didn't play lights out he'd still be the top quarterback and that's what the Chiefs are going to take at #1. Geno Smith and Barkley didn't play lights out this year. And Tannehill has better combine measurables, bigger arm, better pocket presence, can make more pro throws than either.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-draft/ ... ay-mailbag

here's an SBnation piece on this topic

- SBnation.com

Measureables or not, if he had a so-so season or sub-par one he would not be a guaranteed top pick in the draft. Guys can play themselves out of that slot.

Not necessarily. Just look at a guy like Jake Locker. He played aweful his senior year. But he was still drafted top ten because of how well he played his junior year and because he had rare athletic ability.

With every prospect it all boils down to their skillset and ability. Production is a big part of where guys get picked, but often times good players are on bad teams, so you wind up having to evaluate guys more based on their skillset.

Just look at a guy like Jake Cutler. The guy only won 11 games his entire college career. His numbers were very mediocre by college standards. But he was a 1st round pick because of his skillset.

I'm not saying production doesn't play a part, but based on Tannehill's growth in such a short period of time, one could reasonably believe that he was primed to improve and have a good season. All indicators were saying that this was a kid on his way up.

But this is all irrelevant because Tannehill and Sherman are attached at the hip and there was no way Tannehill was going to stick around in a transitional year and risk his draft status. All of these guys talk to evaluators. Once Tannehill found out he'd be a 1st round pick, it was an easy decision I'm sure.

Jake Locker didn't go #1 in the draft.

Got anything else for me? I mean by your logic Michael Egnew should've gone higher than the 3rd round based on his junior year. He was an All-Big 12 and concensus 1st team All-American.

If the A & M staff knew what they had in Johnny Manziel coming into this season, Tannehill would have sat the bench!!

I remember a few people saying last year we should pass on Tannehill because the 2013 class is going to be so good.

A&M moving to the SEC would have meant a tougher schedule for Tannehill.

It's tough to project how he would have done. But one would imagine he'd take the next step, and given the atrocious class of QB's this year, I agree he goes #1.

Cool discussion guys. The only thing that matters is that RT produces next year.

Lets say Tannehill sucked it up like Barkley did or got injured. He might not be #1 overall & if he was it would be by default. I am not sure I am getting this thread. Is this another attempt to justify another losing season by implying that we got a steal at #8 because he might be the #1 in the draft the following year. I mean why not just imply that he is by far head & shoulders better than the 2 Quarterbacks taken ahead of him in his draft year. Taking him at #8 was not a reach , we needed a QB & he had ties to our staff & he was there at 8. Had he not been taken at 8 , Ireland would have had his "acorns" tied & bound by most Dolphin fans.
Look most of us here like the guy but this pedestal thing is getting out of hand. Lets see where we are at in 2 years. Why not start a thread on how he should be rookie of the year.

Oh c'mon, nobody on here would do such a thing.

Russell Wilson was a steal. Luck and RGIII lived up to their lofty draft status. All 3 are in the playoffs.

We gave up a top pick for a guy who has yet to deliver......there is hope, but I want results. Maybe next year?

Nice summation.

Luck for all the good he did...Has some things to cleanup himself...

His qb rating is right there with Tanny 76.5 to 76.1. His comp.% is 54 which was the lowest in the league(Lower than Sanchize) and he had 18 picks...Surrounded by a heck of alot more talent than Tannehill and going into an established system.

Anyway i think i heard Tannehill would'nt have been taken until the second round if not for those guys staying in school.

He's not worthy

"had yet to deliver"..????
That's a bit harsh. It makes it sound like he was a flop.
We all knew he was raw and had a lot of learning to do. He played well without much of a supporting cast.

He has delivered, and if you look at his progress this year there is no reason to think that he would not be the overall #1 pick in the draft this year. He would have had a very good senior year at Texas A&M.

Russell Wilson was a steal. Luck and RGIII lived up to their lofty draft status. All 3 are in the playoffs.

We gave up a top pick for a guy who has yet to deliver......there is hope, but I want results. Maybe next year?


No question had Tannehill stayed at A & M and if he was again the starter (Manziel as a freshman would have been on the bench) he would have grown even more as a QB heading into the NFL.

Tannehill in my opinion was still very green as a QB and the Dolphins knew that and he still started and played his rookie year. Next season is a year that I am really hoping bigger things from the kid.

Give him some more line protection and more offensive weapons too. There is good reason for us fans to be more excited than in years past at the QB spot.

I agree with the naysayers. I don't think that is a reasonable assumption. He could have gotten hurt or not done well under a different HC. Being the #1 pick isn't easy to earn.

Wasn't Barkley considered the better prospect last year before he decided to return to USC?

Outside of Barkley's intangibles, I can agree that Tannehill probably is the most talented QB versus this year's prospects. But the thread topic is a pretty wild assumption.

Give him this much credit though...he had what would normally be considered a good rookie year on a team that wasn't built too well. No one thought he was ready to start and he ended up being much better than most expected. He has a lot of things to work on but has shown enough upside and flashes for us to think that he can be a good starter for a long time.

A quarterback doesn't go 1st overall every year. The writer of this article was simply pointing out that with the need for quarterbacks at the top end of the draft, there is a good chance that Tannehill could have potentially gone 1st overall had he improved off of his junior season.

As far as Egnew, he fell for a reason. Low wonderlic score and he probably tested out poorly on the chalkboard. The guy has the physical ability, he just lacks the mental side of things.

I'm extremely impressed with Tannehill and glad we drafted him...........he may very well have gone #1 overall.........or he could have benched in favor of Manziel and dropped to a late round pick. Not sure what difference it makes now.

I wonder if Ryan Leaf had stayed in school he would be going #1 in the following draft.

If I would have went to school I would have been a Doctor or Lawyer

If my dog had not stopped to relieve himself he would have caught the rabbit.

I am curious where did you get this from?