Would You Take Tannehill?

[thesack12]

Jeez man, anybody who mentions bringing in somebody like Tannehill, or worse Sanchez, or to play Gabbert is really only interested in making a QB change just for the sake of change.

Calm down Joshy. I just opened up the topic for discussion. I'm firing up the "Sign-Tannehill bandwagon."

Oh, and in case you were wondering, literally any other QB option would be better than DumbDumb & his salary at this point.

I'm confident there will be plenty of room available on that bandwagon.

And there are several worse options out there, Tannehill for one. Kaep's contract is very team friendly

[NinerSickness]

And there are several worse options out there, Tannehill for one. Kaep's contract is very team friendly

Nope.

And the only "friendly" part of the contract is that it's easy to cut him.

[thesack12]

^ Exactly

[MHSL82]

^ Exactly

When talking about keeping the quarterback or not, there's no relevance to the team-friendliness of the contract in that you can cut them. Team friendly when you're keeping the quarterback has to be about dollar amount.

I mean, it sounds like you're saying that we should keep him because the contract is team friendly. That makes no sense if we keep him, we pay him a lot of money. Regardless of the team friendliness. And if you dump the quarterback with no cap issue, the contract doesn't matter.

I would have every other reason in the book if there were any to keep him. I'm not saying we shouldn't whatsoever keep him, I just think the contract is irrelevant.

It's like saying walking over firey bridge is safe because you don't have to cross it. Once you decide across it, it's dangerous.

[thesack12]

^ Exactly

When talking about keeping the quarterback or not, there's no relevance to the team-friendliness of the contract in that you can cut them. Team friendly when you're keeping the quarterback has to be about dollar amount.

I mean, it sounds like you're saying that we should keep him because the contract is team friendly. That makes no sense if we keep him, we pay him a lot of money. Regardless of the team friendliness. And if you dump the quarterback with no cap issue, the contract doesn't matter.

I would have every other reason in the book if there were any to keep him. I'm not saying we shouldn't whatsoever keep him, I just think the contract is irrelevant.

It's like saying walking over firey bridge is safe because you don't have to cross it. Once you decide across it, it's dangerous.

Contracts cannot be compared as a blanket situation, this is not the NBA.

The idea I was responding to was Sickness said "literally any other QB option would be better than (Kaepernick) & his salary at this point." The point I was making is, Kaep's contract is not nearly as ominous as somebody like Tannehill, or Dalton, Or Cutler, or Flacco, or Eli. All those guys are flawed players, some more than others, and their teams MUST be committed to them due to their contract structures. Either they ride that committment, or they bite a serious salary cap bullet when they release them. Its the exact reason why Cutler is still in a Bears uniform.

If Kaep continues to go down the current path he is on, he simply goes bye bye without the team suffering serious salary cap implications for a year or more. And that is very much a "team friendly" contract, especially for a quarterback. If he pulls his head out of his ass and starts to trend towards the his early production then it remains a team friendly deal because its basically structured as a year to year thing, so he most likely is going to remain hungry.

As for the actual dollars of a contract, you do realize that an immense amount of NFL contracts are re-worked in some fashion every season right? If that situation were to arise with Kaep, his lack of guaranteed $ kills any leverage he may have, so that again makes it a "team friendly" situation should they decide to move forward with him.

With the structure of Kaep's contract it is going to be solely his performance on the field that determines what the team plans to do with him moving forward. There will be no "business' factors playing in. And that is the way it should be. Its one of the extremely select few things Baalke has gotten right recently.

[tallglassowater]

Jeez man, anybody who mentions bringing in somebody like Tannehill, or worse Sanchez, or to play Gabbert is really only interested in making a QB change just for the sake of change. Those guys have proven to be consistently terrible, and have never done ANYTHING of note.

Making any semblance of a commitment to any of those guys will inevitably set the franchise back for however long they are wearing your uniform, and your QB search never stopped.

No Gabbert, no Sanchez, no Tannhehill, No Cutler, and No to any other craptacular retreads. Really there really isn't such a thing as a retread QB, because if they are available they never provided much traction in the first place.

There is a reason why these guys become available. Think about it.

There have been plenty of cases of guys doing jack **** only to come to a new team and having a good career.

[RedneckNiner]

I wouldn't really want Tannehill... But I would see what it would take to get Mccaron from the Bengals... Hes a stopgap that would make a good backup to Goff next year.

[MHSL82]

I wouldn't really want Tannehill... But I would see what it would take to get Mccaron from the Bengals... Hes a stopgap that would make a good backup to Goff next year.

Trade Kaepernick to the Chiefs for Aaron Murray or Tyler Bray of Sickness gets his way. Draft Goff if you can but otherwise, Murray could do well for at least awhile.