Talk has turned now to the idea that the Chiefs may draft a QB high this month. The guy the discussion has centered around is Ryan Tannehill. We've also done some inspecting on other options as well, like Brock Oswiller. It pleases me that we are at least looking at QBs. I am deeply uncomfortable with what the Chiefs have at QB right now. If you can't comfortably say your QB is at least very good, you're not in the conversation for the Lombardi trophy. Try to name a QB who has won the Superbowl in recent memory who was anything less than very good. You can't do it. A couple of average guys have sneaked into the Superbowl on great defenses, but they were manhandled in the big game. The debate about Matt Cassel is weather he's average or not. Right there is your indicator that if you're serious about championships, it's time to consider moving on. The Chiefs look to be tinkering with the idea of bringing an heir apparent on board. What scares me is that I think we're barking up the wrong tree. I don't advocate drafting a QB, especially with a first round pick, just for the sake of doing it. Only so many good QBs come along each decade, let alone a single draft. That means we need to ask if there is anyone after Luck and Griffin in this year's class worth picking up. If the answer is yes, it's not because of Ryan Tannehill.

Tann man scares me. I think drafting him would be a titanic mistake. When I watched Big 12 football I was never particularly impressed by him. His numbers aren't all that impressive either. Consider the following chart:

These are the numbers for Weeden, Stanzi, and Tannehill in their final year of play. You'll see that Tannehill is the worst of the three in every category save for TDs, where he's still second to Weeden. I didn't include yardage on here because it would have distorted the graph, but here are their numbers: Weeden - 4,727; Tannehill - 3,744; Stanzi - 3,004. Tannehill outdoes Stanzi, but is again behind Weeden. Weeden beats him by almost ONE THOUSAND yards. Pass yards alone don't mean a whole lot, but consider that Weeden threw for considerably more yardage while maintaining a higher completion % and lower INT total. Tannehill is really more comparable statistically to Stanzi, who still bests him on 4 of 6 measures. Keep in mind this is a very apples-to-apples comparison here insofar as Weeden and Tannehill go. They played in the Big 12 at the same time. Despite this Tannehill will probably be taken in the 1st, and Weeden in the 2nd, while Stanzi went in the 5th. Hmmm....

Weeden is statistically a better QB than Tannehill. Even if we were to use Weeden's numbers as a Jr. he still wins every category. His numbers are almost identical actually, save for a lower 67 completion percentage. That's still well superior to Tann man's 61%. Completion % is an important number to me because it bakes in decision making and accuracy. When you Break down Tannehills numbers, he's all over the place. He ran up the score vs weak teams (80.8% vs Southern Methodist) and had some bad performances vs better teams (40.8% vs Texas). That's a 40 point spread! He had 5 games where his completion percentage was below 60%. For comparison Weeden only had 1 game where his completion percentage dipped below 60. Across his Jr. and Sr. year Weeden only had 3 games where his completion % was under 60.

If you're a good QB, you should be doing more than putting up pretty numbers; you should be defeating opponents. As a Sr. Weeden won all but one game, and that almost feels wrong to cite since it went into double overtime. He only lost two as a senior, for a grand total of 3. As for the Tann man, he only won 53% of his games. In the same pool of competition Weeden was dominant, while Tannehill was a little above average. Weeden defeated Tannehill straight up as well. Not only that, he defeated RG3 and Andrew Luck. Hell we might be talking about Weeden as a BCS champ if it weren't for some questionable ratings there at the end.

It may have occurred to you by now that I'm a fan of drafting Brandon Weeden. If he is there in the 2nd I think we have to take him. The guy's a baller and a winner. Now, some of you may be thinking "but he's 28!" I understand having reservations about a player that age, but remember what position we're talking about here. If he were a CB I wouldn't even consider him. He's a QB though, and they regularly play into their late 30s and some into their early 40s. We could get a decade out of Weeden and even if it's less, he has enough talent to develop into a very good QB. When I'm looking at these two QBs I see one as significantly more talented than the other. Talent is what is going to get you somewhere, not being younger at a position where the benefits of youth are far less pronounced. So I say why are we flirting with a younger, inferior QB that would cost us a 1st, when a more mature, and more talented one will be (probably) be there in the second? His age has its benefits as well. This won't be his first time in the big leagues.

So what is it AP?

via cdn.bleacherreport.net

OR

via blogs.denverpost.com