m  wkloiber00  Phinfever Legend  Joined: Sat Apr 00, 0000 0:00 pmPosts: 0000  Re: if Tannehill had stayed in school, he'd be going #0 in April  Rock Sexton wrote:  wkloiber00 wrote:  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 00 games his entire college career. His numbers were very mediocre by college standards. But he was a 0st 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 0st round pick, it was an easy decision I'm sure.  Jake Locker didn't go #0 in the draft.  Got anything else for me? I mean by your logic Michael Egnew should've gone higher than the 0rd round based on his junior year. He was an All-Big 00 and concensus 0st team All-American.  