#Tannehype vs. #TannehillExpress
I had the opportunity to listen to Joe Lull this past week on 92.3 The Fan. And, per usual*, he was sharing a well-thought out, logical approach in analyzing a sports argument. The day’s topic: why the Browns should take Ryan Tannehill at #4.
I’ve listened to this rant a few times before, but the barebones/simplified version of his syllogism seems to be:
A) The Browns need a franchise Quarterback
B) Ryan Tannehill is a franchise Quarterback
C) Therefore, the Browns need Ryan Tannehill.
Logically, of course, this works. Assuming the truth of the first two premises, the conclusion follows. That’s why the only two debates he welcomes in response to his #TannehillExpress is that either 1) Colt McCoy can be the guy (i.e., premise “A” is flawed) and/or 2) that Ryan Tannehill blows (i.e., premise “B” is flawed). If either premise falls, so does the conclusion. He knows this. And he’ll debate the merits of those first two premises all day.
The one argument he won’t welcome is: “I’d only take Tannehill at [some point after #4].”
Based on the above syllogism, this also makes sense. After all, quarterback is the most important position on a football team — so if you can get a franchise quarterback, you do it. Don’t get cute.
Only problem is that the above syllogism was just a mildly simplified version. A slight change makes it much more complex:
A) The Browns need a franchise QB.
B) Ryan Tannehill might be a franchise QB.
C) Therefore, the Browns need to take Ryan Tannehill.
Tannehill is not Andrew Luck. He’s not that elite, top tier prospect. No one is betting their first born on him.
The particular segment I caught on his afternoon show was that, sitting at 4, the Browns should take Tannehill if he is anywhere in the same ball park to 4 on their rankings, based on the value his position plays.
I guess now would be an inappropriately late time to get to the point of this article: I would argue that the ball park/window is smaller than Joe believes it is.
If you are going to take a quarterback in the top half of the first round, you better be positive that he is your guy. The irony is that I say this because of the value of the quarterback position as well. Unlike other positions, where more growing pains are allowed for rookies, the quarterback is the face of the franchise and constantly under the microscope. A top 5 quarterback has an expectation of greatness that is almost unfair to the more developmental prospects.
If you take Tannehill at 4, the Browns will have to dedicate the next three years to developing him. I know that the monetary implications are not the same with the new CBA, and the Browns could afford the mistake. But if Heckert has the onions to turn in Tannehill’s card within the first hour of the draft, fans would call for his head if he does not pan out within three years or the Browns give up on him before that. Blown top 5 quarterbacks are the most glorified busts.
Of course, this all depends on where you rank Tannehill. Joe has him ranked 8th-ish. If you have him ranked 8th-ish, then you take him at 4. If you have him ranked 10-14? I’m getting iffy. Past 15? Try your luck on a guy you really like later.
A team hopefully doesn’t have too many years of picking in the top five. At some point, the gamble becomes too great, and you can’t pass up on a more sure-fire playmaker.
* I kind of hate 90% of sports talk show hosts right now. For the most part, they are all loud, seemingly uninformed yet NEED to take some sort of stance, and pull a Skip Bayless (say something for the sake of pissing off people… Chris Fedor. Is. The. Worst.). So anyways, Joe is part of the 10%
** I’m currently at 35 hours with no sleep. And I haven’t reread this before posting. So I’m also 90% sure this doesn’t make any sense at all.