but he's been injury prone and immature. You cant pay that kind of player more than $6-8 mil.
Tennessee - who I think is a team that should quietly be all over Eli - is in a similar boat. Mariota will NEVER get them where they should be with that line, running game and defense.
Tannehill is the guy I think of immediately when I think of "QB hell"
Yep this year it's Daniel Jones. Some poor coach will be out of a job in a couple of years and a franchise along with it's fan base will have to start over from scratch.
Tannehill is the guy I think of immediately when I think of "QB hell"
Alex Smith is QB hell not Tannehill.
A team can cut Tannehill (clearly) but Washington is on the hook for Smith for years to come. That's QB hell.
Alex Smith has won playoff games, and gotten his team to the playoff. Not exactly QB hell. QB hell is consistently 4-8 wins a year and never getting better.
I posted that last night in response to another regarding the statement that NFL teams don't tank. It didn't get any traction, but it will be interesting to watch the offseason in how they trim their roster and how the team dynamic functions during games. If all goes as planned, Ross will have his Tua.
Read the linked article above. They are not going QB in the draft and they are not in the market for a QB in FA. They intend to "organically" tank. Apparently it was a point of discussion in HC interviews. Ross loves Tua. He will gut the rest of the roster to ensure they are not competitive.
Tannehill is the guy I think of immediately when I think of "QB hell"
Alex Smith is QB hell not Tannehill.
A team can cut Tannehill (clearly) but Washington is on the hook for Smith for years to come. That's QB hell.
Getting stuck in a bad spot because of a gruesome injury isn't QB hell. Washington couldn't do anything about that. If Smith hadn't been hurt, he'd be viable enough like he was in KC and SF. Smith has never been great, but the guy has won a LOT of football games - including playoff games.
Tannehill can't say that.
Cousins was a worse signing than Smith, honestly.
The reason why Ryan Tannehill is a "qb hell" type of guy is because you draft him, he plays well enough at times, but is clearly nothing special - but you get sucked into thinking he can get better. You keep winning 6, 7 and 8 games - you think maybe if you improve the team around him, you'll win with him.
You get too spooked by the prospect of cutting ties too soon only to watch him to succeed elsewhere, so you panic and keep him around - only for him to continue to be thoroughly average and keep your team spinning their wheels in the mud.
This is 7 years now that Miami has been dealing with the Tannehill experiment. That's 7 seasons where they kept trying to evaluate a very mediocre player who got them nowhere and wound up injured in the one year that they actually did make the playoffs and wasn't available at that point anyway.
The ACL injury also then compounded things.
7 years Miami wasted with this guy. That's a long time. That's QB hell.
Of why you don't reach for a QB in the draft. And he's not awful, just mediocre. IMO.
So do you think Miami thought they were reaching when they took him?
Obviously I can't say for sure how they felt or where they ranked him on their board, but I feel they did. They were running Matt Moore and Chad Henne out the year before and Tannehill was the 3rd ranked QB on the board after Luck and RG3.
I'm all about BPA and think hand wringing about a QB spot forces teams to overdraft. It's always a gamble. If he TRULY was the highest ranked player on their board then can't fault the pick. But based on who they had at QB on the roster and who was left on the board, I would guess it was at least a slight reach.
If Manning and the Giants work out a deal for 2019 and the Giants Â
Of why you don't reach for a QB in the draft. And he's not awful, just mediocre. IMO.
So do you think Miami thought they were reaching when they took him?
Obviously I can't say for sure how they felt or where they ranked him on their board, but I feel they did. They were running Matt Moore and Chad Henne out the year before and Tannehill was the 3rd ranked QB on the board after Luck and RG3.
I'm all about BPA and think hand wringing about a QB spot forces teams to overdraft. It's always a gamble. If he TRULY was the highest ranked player on their board then can't fault the pick. But based on who they had at QB on the roster and who was left on the board, I would guess it was at least a slight reach.
I am just a bit tired of hearing posters keep saying Giants shouldn't reach for a QB or teams don't want to reach for a QB. When you know damn well those GMs/Team didn't really think they were when they selected those players. All players come with risk...and QBs probably the most but since there are only typically about single-digit number of QBs available each year they rise...
He is slightly above mediocre and Fins would have made the playoffs if he had t missed games this year.
Injuries have been big for him and for the o-line. He is going to go somewhere and be a consistent winner if he can keep from being injured.
This is a case of new coach, new QB.
This. Tannehill is already way, way better than Case Keenum ever was before his one year revival under Shurmur Minnesota. Assuming Shurmur can rehab Tannehill, he's actually a very reasonable project for the Giants at the right price. Which is IMO where he will be priced, on a prove it deal.
It's not kneejerk. Ryan Tannehill is the exact QB that Gettleman has been stressing not wanting to get stuck with. He's been in the league 7 years now. We know what he is. Thoroughly mediocre and not a championship caliber QB.
It would be a terrible move for the Giants to make and I'd instantly lose faith in this regime.
Tannehill isn't good and it has now been 4 years since he's played a full season. No thank you. Major, major pass.
The reason why Ryan Tannehill is a "qb hell" type of guy is because you draft him, he plays well enough at times, but is clearly nothing special - but you get sucked into thinking he can get better. You keep winning 6, 7 and 8 games - you think maybe if you improve the team around him, you'll win with him.
You get too spooked by the prospect of cutting ties too soon only to watch him to succeed elsewhere, so you panic and keep him around - only for him to continue to be thoroughly average and keep your team spinning their wheels in the mud.
The reason why Ryan Tannehill is a "qb hell" type of guy is because you draft him, he plays well enough at times, but is clearly nothing special - but you get sucked into thinking he can get better. You keep winning 6, 7 and 8 games - you think maybe if you improve the team around him, you'll win with him.
You get too spooked by the prospect of cutting ties too soon only to watch him to succeed elsewhere, so you panic and keep him around - only for him to continue to be thoroughly average and keep your team spinning their wheels in the mud.
This sounds very familiar.
It does, but the difference is that Eli had 2 SB MVP's to his credit around the time this started to go south. It makes sense that someone like Eli Manning, who has on top of this, never missed a game due to injury, would get a significantly longer leash than Ryan Tannehill.
The Giants knew they could win championships with Eli because they already did.
Unfortunately, the clock kind of ran out on Eli playing at a level where he could carry the Giants for stretches and it's getting more expensive and more difficult to get the team around him that he'll need to win.
The reason why Ryan Tannehill is a "qb hell" type of guy is because you draft him, he plays well enough at times, but is clearly nothing special - but you get sucked into thinking he can get better. You keep winning 6, 7 and 8 games - you think maybe if you improve the team around him, you'll win with him.
You get too spooked by the prospect of cutting ties too soon only to watch him to succeed elsewhere, so you panic and keep him around - only for him to continue to be thoroughly average and keep your team spinning their wheels in the mud.
This sounds very familiar.
It does, but the difference is that Eli had 2 SB MVP's to his credit around the time this started to go south. It makes sense that someone like Eli Manning, who has on top of this, never missed a game due to injury, would get a significantly longer leash than Ryan Tannehill.
The Giants knew they could win championships with Eli because they already did.
Unfortunately, the clock kind of ran out on Eli playing at a level where he could carry the Giants for stretches and it's getting more expensive and more difficult to get the team around him that he'll need to win.
I actually am one of the few that thinks Eli still has more left in the tank. It just tough to see with the crap that they have trotted out in front of him since 2012. He can still win with decent blocking.
The Giants will never see another winning season Â
Maybe. It's pretty clear to me that he can still play when the OL holds up. But it may take longer than he has here to get it to a good enough level. By the time we have the pieces we need on OL AND defense he will likely be gone. But I don't think we're as far off as you clearly do Googs.
Of why you don't reach for a QB in the draft. And he's not awful, just mediocre. IMO.
So do you think Miami thought they were reaching when they took him?
Obviously I can't say for sure how they felt or where they ranked him on their board, but I feel they did. They were running Matt Moore and Chad Henne out the year before and Tannehill was the 3rd ranked QB on the board after Luck and RG3.
I'm all about BPA and think hand wringing about a QB spot forces teams to overdraft. It's always a gamble. If he TRULY was the highest ranked player on their board then can't fault the pick. But based on who they had at QB on the roster and who was left on the board, I would guess it was at least a slight reach.
I am just a bit tired of hearing posters keep saying Giants shouldn't reach for a QB or teams don't want to reach for a QB. When you know damn well those GMs/Team didn't really think they were when they selected those players. All players come with risk...and QBs probably the most but since there are only typically about single-digit number of QBs available each year they rise...
I think the point is to pick the best player, and the guy who you have the most confidence in while be a stud. You don't want to say "I need a QB" and just take the best one available even if you like players at other positions more. QB is a crapshoot like every other position, teams can't afford to miss with their #1.
You may not want to say "I need a QB" but sometimes you really do Â
Agreed
Tennessee - who I think is a team that should quietly be all over Eli - is in a similar boat. Mariota will NEVER get them where they should be with that line, running game and defense.
Nope. The plan is to tank
Link - ( New Window )
Sounds like Tampa will cut Gerald McCoy too.
1 9 Carolina Panthers Luke Kuechly † LB Boston College
1 10 Buffalo Bills Stephon Gilmore † CB South Carolina
1 11 Kansas City Chiefs Dontari Poe † DT Memphis
1 12 Philadelphia Eagles Fletcher Cox † DT Mississippi State
Miami went QB. 20/20 hindsight Luke Kuechly went with the next pick and Fletcher Cox went 3 picks later.
2012 NFL Draft - Wikipedia - ( New Window )
Tannehill wasn’t terrible. Just good enough to tease year after year.
In the last 20 years, the Dolphins, Jets, and Bills have combined for, what, 75 quarterbacks and 35 head coaches?
Yep this year it's Daniel Jones. Some poor coach will be out of a job in a couple of years and a franchise along with it's fan base will have to start over from scratch.
Alex Smith is QB hell not Tannehill.
A team can cut Tannehill (clearly) but Washington is on the hook for Smith for years to come. That's QB hell.
Kirk Cousins for me.
Rd 1 Pick 2 Robert Griffin
Rd 1 Pick 8 Ryan Tannehill
Rd 1 Pick 22 Brandon Weeden
Rd 2 Pick 57 Brock Osweiler
Rd 3 Pick 75 Russell Wilson
Rd 3 Pick 88 Nick Foles
Rd 4 Pick 102 Kirk Cousins
A few success stories and a few guys in here that hit the jackpot with a lot of money and delivering not much of anything...
Quote:
Tannehill is the guy I think of immediately when I think of "QB hell"
Alex Smith is QB hell not Tannehill.
A team can cut Tannehill (clearly) but Washington is on the hook for Smith for years to come. That's QB hell.
Alex Smith has won playoff games, and gotten his team to the playoff. Not exactly QB hell. QB hell is consistently 4-8 wins a year and never getting better.
So do you think Miami thought they were reaching when they took him?
Quote:
-
Nope. The plan is to tank
Link - ( New Window )
I posted that last night in response to another regarding the statement that NFL teams don't tank. It didn't get any traction, but it will be interesting to watch the offseason in how they trim their roster and how the team dynamic functions during games. If all goes as planned, Ross will have his Tua.
Read the linked article above. They are not going QB in the draft and they are not in the market for a QB in FA. They intend to "organically" tank. Apparently it was a point of discussion in HC interviews. Ross loves Tua. He will gut the rest of the roster to ensure they are not competitive.
They have 13, not 10
Quote:
Tannehill is the guy I think of immediately when I think of "QB hell"
Alex Smith is QB hell not Tannehill.
A team can cut Tannehill (clearly) but Washington is on the hook for Smith for years to come. That's QB hell.
Getting stuck in a bad spot because of a gruesome injury isn't QB hell. Washington couldn't do anything about that. If Smith hadn't been hurt, he'd be viable enough like he was in KC and SF. Smith has never been great, but the guy has won a LOT of football games - including playoff games.
Tannehill can't say that.
Cousins was a worse signing than Smith, honestly.
The reason why Ryan Tannehill is a "qb hell" type of guy is because you draft him, he plays well enough at times, but is clearly nothing special - but you get sucked into thinking he can get better. You keep winning 6, 7 and 8 games - you think maybe if you improve the team around him, you'll win with him.
You get too spooked by the prospect of cutting ties too soon only to watch him to succeed elsewhere, so you panic and keep him around - only for him to continue to be thoroughly average and keep your team spinning their wheels in the mud.
This is 7 years now that Miami has been dealing with the Tannehill experiment. That's 7 seasons where they kept trying to evaluate a very mediocre player who got them nowhere and wound up injured in the one year that they actually did make the playoffs and wasn't available at that point anyway.
The ACL injury also then compounded things.
7 years Miami wasted with this guy. That's a long time. That's QB hell.
Quote:
Of why you don't reach for a QB in the draft. And he's not awful, just mediocre. IMO.
So do you think Miami thought they were reaching when they took him?
Obviously I can't say for sure how they felt or where they ranked him on their board, but I feel they did. They were running Matt Moore and Chad Henne out the year before and Tannehill was the 3rd ranked QB on the board after Luck and RG3.
I'm all about BPA and think hand wringing about a QB spot forces teams to overdraft. It's always a gamble. If he TRULY was the highest ranked player on their board then can't fault the pick. But based on who they had at QB on the roster and who was left on the board, I would guess it was at least a slight reach.
Assume adequate cap space that will come from reworking Eli’s contract.
Do you sign a career backup who has no hope of being a long term starter or a former starter looking to succeed Eli?
Quote:
In comment 14284224 Johnny5 said:
Quote:
Of why you don't reach for a QB in the draft. And he's not awful, just mediocre. IMO.
So do you think Miami thought they were reaching when they took him?
Obviously I can't say for sure how they felt or where they ranked him on their board, but I feel they did. They were running Matt Moore and Chad Henne out the year before and Tannehill was the 3rd ranked QB on the board after Luck and RG3.
I'm all about BPA and think hand wringing about a QB spot forces teams to overdraft. It's always a gamble. If he TRULY was the highest ranked player on their board then can't fault the pick. But based on who they had at QB on the roster and who was left on the board, I would guess it was at least a slight reach.
Ok, fair enough. Appreciate balanced response Johnny.
I am just a bit tired of hearing posters keep saying Giants shouldn't reach for a QB or teams don't want to reach for a QB. When you know damn well those GMs/Team didn't really think they were when they selected those players. All players come with risk...and QBs probably the most but since there are only typically about single-digit number of QBs available each year they rise...
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for any team.
Injuries have been big for him and for the o-line. He is going to go somewhere and be a consistent winner if he can keep from being injured.
This is a case of new coach, new QB.
Injuries have been big for him and for the o-line. He is going to go somewhere and be a consistent winner if he can keep from being injured.
This is a case of new coach, new QB.
This. Tannehill is already way, way better than Case Keenum ever was before his one year revival under Shurmur Minnesota. Assuming Shurmur can rehab Tannehill, he's actually a very reasonable project for the Giants at the right price. Which is IMO where he will be priced, on a prove it deal.
Even on a one year deal like Keenum... What bad can come out of it? No one is throwing $$$ at Tannehill now.
He's not an upgrade from Tanney or Lauletta?
It would be a terrible move for the Giants to make and I'd instantly lose faith in this regime.
Tannehill isn't good and it has now been 4 years since he's played a full season. No thank you. Major, major pass.
I'd rather have Eli at age 38.
With the Broncos and with his stints prior to that with the Rams and Texans, he was very pedestrian.
We don't have the component parts where a QB like Tannehill will thrive. Plus, he's injury prone.
You get too spooked by the prospect of cutting ties too soon only to watch him to succeed elsewhere, so you panic and keep him around - only for him to continue to be thoroughly average and keep your team spinning their wheels in the mud.
This sounds very familiar.
Quote:
The reason why Ryan Tannehill is a "qb hell" type of guy is because you draft him, he plays well enough at times, but is clearly nothing special - but you get sucked into thinking he can get better. You keep winning 6, 7 and 8 games - you think maybe if you improve the team around him, you'll win with him.
You get too spooked by the prospect of cutting ties too soon only to watch him to succeed elsewhere, so you panic and keep him around - only for him to continue to be thoroughly average and keep your team spinning their wheels in the mud.
This sounds very familiar.
It does, but the difference is that Eli had 2 SB MVP's to his credit around the time this started to go south. It makes sense that someone like Eli Manning, who has on top of this, never missed a game due to injury, would get a significantly longer leash than Ryan Tannehill.
The Giants knew they could win championships with Eli because they already did.
Unfortunately, the clock kind of ran out on Eli playing at a level where he could carry the Giants for stretches and it's getting more expensive and more difficult to get the team around him that he'll need to win.
Quote:
Quote:
The reason why Ryan Tannehill is a "qb hell" type of guy is because you draft him, he plays well enough at times, but is clearly nothing special - but you get sucked into thinking he can get better. You keep winning 6, 7 and 8 games - you think maybe if you improve the team around him, you'll win with him.
You get too spooked by the prospect of cutting ties too soon only to watch him to succeed elsewhere, so you panic and keep him around - only for him to continue to be thoroughly average and keep your team spinning their wheels in the mud.
This sounds very familiar.
It does, but the difference is that Eli had 2 SB MVP's to his credit around the time this started to go south. It makes sense that someone like Eli Manning, who has on top of this, never missed a game due to injury, would get a significantly longer leash than Ryan Tannehill.
The Giants knew they could win championships with Eli because they already did.
Unfortunately, the clock kind of ran out on Eli playing at a level where he could carry the Giants for stretches and it's getting more expensive and more difficult to get the team around him that he'll need to win.
I actually am one of the few that thinks Eli still has more left in the tank. It just tough to see with the crap that they have trotted out in front of him since 2012. He can still win with decent blocking.
But lets keep on thinking 2011 was yesterday...
But lets keep on thinking 2011 was yesterday...
Maybe. It's pretty clear to me that he can still play when the OL holds up. But it may take longer than he has here to get it to a good enough level. By the time we have the pieces we need on OL AND defense he will likely be gone. But I don't think we're as far off as you clearly do Googs.
Quote:
In comment 14284230 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
In comment 14284224 Johnny5 said:
Quote:
Of why you don't reach for a QB in the draft. And he's not awful, just mediocre. IMO.
So do you think Miami thought they were reaching when they took him?
Obviously I can't say for sure how they felt or where they ranked him on their board, but I feel they did. They were running Matt Moore and Chad Henne out the year before and Tannehill was the 3rd ranked QB on the board after Luck and RG3.
I'm all about BPA and think hand wringing about a QB spot forces teams to overdraft. It's always a gamble. If he TRULY was the highest ranked player on their board then can't fault the pick. But based on who they had at QB on the roster and who was left on the board, I would guess it was at least a slight reach.
Ok, fair enough. Appreciate balanced response Johnny.
I am just a bit tired of hearing posters keep saying Giants shouldn't reach for a QB or teams don't want to reach for a QB. When you know damn well those GMs/Team didn't really think they were when they selected those players. All players come with risk...and QBs probably the most but since there are only typically about single-digit number of QBs available each year they rise...
I think the point is to pick the best player, and the guy who you have the most confidence in while be a stud. You don't want to say "I need a QB" and just take the best one available even if you like players at other positions more. QB is a crapshoot like every other position, teams can't afford to miss with their #1.
GMs don't improve their franchise by picking RBs in Rd1 each year because its the safe pick.