It's not all about the Almighty Quarterback, dummies!

[Laxpunk2006]

Ya who cares if we set the team back a decade and don't have a single talent around said QB? Forget all those first round draft picks that have netted us the majority of the above average talent we currently have; T. Williams, B Orakpo, R Kerrigan, Landry, Taylor (may he rest in peace) Let's keep using multiple first round picks on QBs ie what we did to acquire Jason Campbell. That'll surely take this team to where it needs to be.

This is such a tired argument. We did not use multiple first round picks to acquire Campbell. Go back and look at the trade, it's very simple math.

[Hitman21ST]

Since you didn't understand my post, you've come up with two points to counter a point I never made, and they're entirely irrelevant. In addition, I would think that my comment was quite obviously an exaggeration, not expected to be taken literally.

So how about saying something about the lack of talent vs. production. You've said, repeatedly, that we don't have elite, gamechanging talent on the roster. However, Gaffney was almost a 1000 yard receiver, and Davis was on pace for 1000 yards easily (800 through 12 games). With a quarterback better than Grossman, Gaffney would have easily broken 1000, and had Davis not been a bonehead, he would have also. An elite quarterback means those two players, at least, have elite production. You seem to keep ignoring that point.

[Mahons21]

This is such a tired argument. We did not use multiple first round picks to acquire Campbell. Go back and look at the trade, it's very simple math.

Almost as tired as your literacy. Go back and look at what I wrote. Use multiple 1st round picks on a QB. There's the pick the team literally used on him, that's one first round draft choice, then there's the following 1st rd draft choice the year later thus 1+1 = 2

keep using multiple first round picks on QBs ie what we did to acquire Jason Campbell

---------- Post added January-29th-2012 at 01:06 PM ----------

So how about saying something about the lack of talent vs. production. You've said, repeatedly, that we don't have elite, gamechanging talent on the roster. However, Gaffney was almost a 1000 yard receiver, and Davis was on pace for 1000 yards easily (800 through 12 games). With a quarterback better than Grossman, Gaffney would have easily broken 1000, and had Davis not been a bonehead, he would have also. An elite quarterback means those two players, at least, have elite production. You seem to keep ignoring that point.

No I don't ignore it at all. If you would like me to go back and point out where I've said on more than one occasion, I don't confuse opportunity with talent. Davis and Gaffney were the top two passing targets on an offense, thus they will have good stats. Gaffney is a possession receiver, nothing more, he's not going to start gaining YAC with a different QB. Davis is what he is, an above average TE who will sometimes make plays that wow you and sometimes make plays that leave you scratching your head. Once Davis proves he can consistently make wow plays, then he would be considered a playmaker, he's yet to prove this.

Nate Washington had 1,000 yards this year despite only being the #1 target for 13 games. I don't think Nate Washington is anything special either. Nate was simply the benefactor of opportunity.

[KCClybun]

I'd be remissed if I did not state, once again, for the record, that if we give up a 1st and 2nd in 2012 and a first round pick in 2013, we'll still wind up with seven draft picks in each of the next two drafts.

[terpskins10]

I'd be remissed if I did not state, once again, for the record, that if we give up a 1st and 2nd in 2012 and a first round pick in 2013, we'll still wind up with seven draft picks in each of the next two drafts.

Yeah, this point keeps getting overlooked.

It's possible to build talent and improve your team to the same degree as other teams in the NFL if you draft well in the middle rounds. I'd honestly say it maybe even MORE important than hitting on picks in the first and second rounds because it builds better depth for cheap costs. Yes, having first round picks would be nice, but I'd rather draft well in the middle rounds (we'll still have the QUANTITY of picks we need) and find a QB for the next decade than have the high picks the next two years with uncertainty at the QB position. Again,as I've stated before, I think the only two QBs in this draft with a shot at becoming franchise QBs regardless of supporting cast are Luck and Griffin, so that's the point that ultimately fuels my argument.

Again, I do think it is possible to build a good team and improve without a pick in either of the first two rounds. Having picks early, as we've seen, doesn't guarantee a team greater improvement over a team without high picks. It's all about drafting well and our FO has shown an ability to do that thus far.

Not to mention we had 12 picks last year who are all with the team currently. That means in three years, even with trading away picks for Griffin, we'll have had 26 draft picks. I think we'd be able to survive one draft without a first rounder/the next without a third rounder if we can draft well outside of that.

[Mahons21]

Yeah, this point keeps getting overlooked.

No, it's just a cherry-picked carefully worded point that doesn't even need to be addressed. Everyone knows we have a few additional mid to late round picks. These picks don't hold nearly the value the the 1st and 2nd rd draft choices, we would essentially lose, hold.

While quantity does matter in the draft, so does quality and it cannot be overlooked.

It's possible to build talent and improve your team to the same degree as other teams in the NFL if you draft well in the middle rounds.

Anything is possible in the NFL. The fact is your making the task that much more difficult because you're forced to draft 2nd tier and developmental players.

I'd honestly say it maybe even MORE important than hitting on picks in the first and second rounds because it builds better depth for cheap costs.

What your essentially saying is hitting on later picks is a greater value, this isn't a surprise to anyone.

It's also much less likely that they succeed, that's why they're later picks.

Yes, having first round picks would be nice, but I'd rather draft well in the middle rounds (we'll still have the QUANTITY of picks we need) and find a QB for the next decade than have the high picks the next two years with uncertainty at the QB position.

Then you would have preferred us trading for Sanchez over drafting Williams/Orakpo?

Again,as I've stated before, I think the only two QBs in this draft with a shot at becoming franchise QBs regardless of supporting cast are Luck and Griffin, so that's the point that ultimately fuels my argument.

Franchise QBs are such a rarity that there simply not worth the gamble, and there's no such thing as a "sure thing" when projecting QBs to the NFL. The science is simply inexact, the history of the NFL draft shows us this.

[terpskins10]

Anything is possible in the NFL. The fact is your making the task that much more difficult because you're forced to draft 2nd tier and developmental players.

This applies to the QB position as well, does it not? Considering he has the ball in his hands on almost every offensive play, having a 2nd tier developmental guy there will hurt your team as much as any other position.

What your essentially saying is hitting on later picks is a greater value, this isn't a surprise to anyone.

It's also much less likely that they succeed, that's why they're later picks.

No argument here. I'm just saying I believe it is worth the risk to solidify the QB position and not have to worry about it again (theoretically) for several years. Given how much we've invested into the position over the last decade (Ramsey, Brunell, Campbell, McNabb), imagine how we'd be if we had someone under center that we didn't have to continuously try and upgrade. I also understand that regime was much more flippant regarding draft picks, but still.

Then you would have preferred us trading for Sanchez over drafting Williams/Orakpo?

This depends on the assumption that I thought Sanchez was any good. I didn't, and was very vocal about it. So to answer your question here, absolutely not.

Franchise QBs are such a rarity that there simply not worth the gamble, and there's no such thing as a "sure thing" when projecting QBs to the NFL. The science is simply inexact, the history of the NFL draft shows us this.

Again, no argument here regarding the no "sure things". However, it's my opinion that they are worth the gamble if there is a prospect you truly think can develop into one, and as you said, the chance of hitting on a player in the early rounds is much higher than in the later rounds (a la Brady). I don't mean "you" as in you or I, but our coaching staff. None of us knows what they think of Griffin, but if they believe he can become that type of player then it is worth the gamble, at least to me. Not having to worry about that position for a long time allows you to do so many things in the draft to stockpile picks and build that depth.

I think whether anyone agrees with it or not, the QB position is the position in football that a team tends to place an unequal amount of emphasis relative to the other 21 positions on the field. Whether that is because the QB position is the make or break position is obviously up for debate, as we've been doing in this thread. However, I don't see that trend of resources being put into the QB position changing any time soon. I think if we can find a player who makes it possible for us to stop putting resources into the position for the next decade, it's the best way to build this team moving forward and making it a 10-year contender even at the expense of the short term.

[KCClybun]

No, it's just a cherry-picked carefully worded point that doesn't even need to be addressed. Everyone knows we have a few additional mid to late round picks. These picks don't hold nearly the value the the 1st and 2nd rd draft choices, we would essentially lose, hold.

While quantity does matter in the draft, so does quality and it cannot be overlooked.

Anything is possible in the NFL. The fact is your making the task that much more difficult because you're forced to draft 2nd tier and developmental players.

What your essentially saying is hitting on later picks is a greater value, this isn't a surprise to anyone.

It's also much less likely that they succeed, that's why they're later picks.

Then you would have preferred us trading for Sanchez over drafting Williams/Orakpo?

Franchise QBs are such a rarity that there simply not worth the gamble, and there's no such thing as a "sure thing" when projecting QBs to the NFL. The science is simply inexact, the history of the NFL draft shows us this.

Your "would you prefer to have Sanchez over Williams/Orakpo" argument is based completely on hindsight. Last I checked, that didn't happen, and there's no telling whether Mark Sanchez would've been more or less successful here as he was with the Jets. That's a straw man argument.

And how is it a "cherry-picked, carefully worded point that doesn't even need to be addressed"? What's cherry-picked about it. Earlier in the thread, you suggested that it would take a 1st and 2nd round pick this year and a 1st round pick in 2012. I said that despite that, we;d still have seven draft picks.

In fact, I mentioned what draft picks we'd have. We wouldn't lose the draft pick we spend on Robert Griffin III---he's still our 1st round pick. Then we'd have a 3rd, two 4ths, 5th, 6th, and 7th. So that's still seven draft picks. And then in next year's draft, we'd have a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, two 6th and a 7ths. That's 7.

What did I cherry pick?

[Mahons21]

This applies to the QB position as well, does it not? Considering he has the ball in his hands on almost every offensive play, having a 2nd tier developmental guy there will hurt your team as much as any other position.

Yes it absolutely applies to the QB position, why would it not?

This depends on the assumption that I thought Sanchez was any good. I didn't, and was very vocal about it. So to answer your question here, absolutely not.

I was simply referencing someone everyone thought was "great prospect" that some unfortunate team ended up trading up for.

Again, no argument here regarding the no "sure things". However, it's my opinion that they are worth the gamble if there is a prospect you truly think can develop into one, and as you said, the chance of hitting on a player in the early rounds is much higher than in the later rounds (a la Brady). I don't mean "you" as in you or I, but our coaching staff. None of us knows what they think of Griffin, but if they believe he can become that type of player then it is worth the gamble, at least to me. Not having to worry about that position for a long time allows you to do so many things in the draft to stockpile picks and build that depth.

What do you think the chances are of getting a "franchise QB" in the top 10 or the top half of the first round are? The hit rate is something near 50%, and this refers to all 1st rd QBs still playing, they don't have to be franchise caliber guys. When it gets to franchise guys, it probably drops down to something like 10% if not lower. Is that really worth the risk of two 1st round draft choices plus some? Not in my opinion. Every time I bring up a Brady/Brees, my post is met with "They're the exception, not the rule" which I readily agree with, however people seem to neglect that franchise QBs themselves are the exception not the rule.

The fact of the matter is, trading up for a descent or playable QB simply isn't worth it, and the chances of acquiring a franchise QB while they may be maximized at the beginning of the draft, are still extremely small.

I think whether anyone agrees with it or not, the QB position is the position in football that a team tends to place an unequal amount of emphasis relative to the other 21 positions on the field. Whether that is because the QB position is the make or break position is obviously up for debate, as we've been doing in this thread. However, I don't see that trend of resources being put into the QB position changing any time soon. I think if we can find a player who makes it possible for us to stop putting resources into the position for the next decade, it's the best way to build this team moving forward and making it a 10-year contender even at the expense of the short term.

QB is without a doubt the most important position on the field, we just have different views about the right away to go about acquiring one for a team which in my opinion, isstill very much in the "rebuilding process"

[terpskins10]

What do you think the chances are of getting a "franchise QB" in the top 10 or the top half of the first round are? The hit rate is something near 50%, and this refers to all 1st rd QBs still playing, they don't have to be franchise caliber guys. When it gets to franchise guys, it probably drops down to something like 10%. Is that really worth the risk of two 1st round draft choices plus some? Not in my opinion. Every time I bring up a Brady/Brees, my post is met with "They're the exception, not the rule" which I readily agree with, however people seem to neglect that franchise QBs themselves are the exception not the rule.

The fact of the matter is, trading up for a descent or playable QB simply isn't worth it, and the chances of acquiring a franchise QB while they may be maximized at the beginning of the draft, they're still very small.

I definitely agree that the hit rate is very small, but I think one thing you aren't addressing is the relative weight of a prospect depending on how good a prospect an individual thinks he is. For me, I wouldn't just trade up willy-nilly for any prospect in the top 10 (which is why I was very against the report of us trading up for Gabbert). There are guys I would personally be willing to trade up for, and ones I wouldn't. I would be willing to trade up for Griffin or Luck because I believe in them as prospects more than I did Sanchez or Gabbert. Not all QB prospects are made equal, so if you think one guy is MORE likely to hit than someone else in similar draft status in a different draft, then the hit/bust numbers don't necessarily apply as much. That's just how I feel, though.

QB is without a doubt the most important position on the field, we just have different views about the right away to go about acquiring one for a team which is in my opinion still very much in the "rebuilding process"

For sure. I think we can both agree that we hope we figure it out soon so we don't have to worry about the position any longer. I just tend to believe that rebuilding would be helped by making a move for a QB now so we don't have to later, since I think having competent QB play helps the development of offensive skill players.

[Mahons21]

I definitely agree that the hit rate is very small, but I think one thing you aren't addressing is the relative weight of a prospect depending on how good a prospect an individual thinks he is. For me, I wouldn't just trade up willy-nilly for any prospect in the top 10 (which is why I was very against the report of us trading up for Gabbert). There are guys I would personally be willing to trade up for, and ones I wouldn't. I would be willing to trade up for Griffin or Luck because I believe in them as prospects more than I did Sanchez or Gabbert. Not all QB prospects are made equal, so if you think one guy is MORE likely to hit than someone else in similar draft status in a different draft, then the hit/bust numbers don't necessarily apply as much. That's just how I feel, though.

This is a good point, my argument is very generalized. This is because in my opinion, on average there isn't much that separates one QB class from the next.

There will always be some new QB that's a guaranteed thing, if I'm not mistaken Jamarcus was one of the higher rated QB prospects that came out last decade. Mel Kiper I believe it was said Russell had the best pro-day he'd ever seen and so on.

For sure. I think we can both agree that we hope we figure it out soon so we don't have to worry about the position any longer. I just tend to believe that rebuilding would be helped by making a move for a QB now so we don't have to later, since I think having competent QB play helps the development of offensive skill players.

I agree with all this, I just don't think the risk is worth it, odds simply aren't good enough.

[terpskins10]

There will always be some new QB that's a guaranteed thing, if I'm not mistaken Jamarcus was one of the higher rated QB prospects that came out last decade. Mel Kiper I believe it was said Russell had the best pro-day he'd ever seen and so on.

Another QB prospect I hated. I think I need to steal Kiper's job.

[Mahons21]

Another QB prospect I hated. I think I need to steal Kiper's job.

Haha don't we all. Part of me thinks he's no different than a politician and he simply gives better reviews to the players of agents/other personnel who lobby for it.

I guess you could say I'm a cynic...

[KCClybun]

JaMarcus Russell had the best Pro Day Kiper had ever seen...coming off one of the worst showings in NFL Combine history. He went to the Combine and stunk it up, came in out of shape, did poorly in interviews, displayed poor football IQ. And then he had the best Pro Day anyone had ever seen, because his terrible showing at the Combine had ruined his stock and Brady Quinn was getting looked at like the best quarterback in the class.

In reality both sucked, just Quinn wasn't quite the ******* Russell was, even though he was still a d-bag.

Kiper also pimped Jimmy Clausen for like a year.

But Al Davis always figured he could "fix" a guy by bringing him to Oakland and having them buy into the "Commitment to Excellence", apparently never having learned from making the same mistake with Todd Marinovich 16 years prior.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Then you would have preferred us trading for Sanchez over drafting Williams/Orakpo?

1: Sanchez is nowhere near the prospect RGIII is.

2: If Sanchez WAS that kind of prospect then you'd at least consider it (and if he was that kind of prospect the Bears wouldn't have traded him anyway)

Franchise QBs are such a rarity that there simply not worth the gamble, and there's no such thing as a "sure thing" when projecting QBs to the NFL. The science is simply inexact, the history of the NFL draft shows us this.

Uh

Rodgers

Brady

Brees

Both Mannings

Rivers

[Roethlisberger

Newton

Stafford

Schaub

Romo sits to pee

Ryan

Top 16 picks in bold.

I think we can agree that these guys are franchise (or at least potential/likely franchise) QBs right?

If you wanna be generous could throw in guys like Vick, Bradford, Cutler, , Dalton, Flacco.

Lots of first rounders. Lots of high first rounders.

Franchise QBs don't sure seem rare, especially when you're picking top 10 caliber guys.

So, I think what you should really say is that they're uncommon outside the high first round - there you have a 50/50 or so chance at getting one by picking there, compared to a 1% chance of picking outside that area. And the thing is, the 2nd tier QB prospects aren't even on the level of a Flacco or a Sanchez, let alone a Cutler or a Roethlisberger. So it makes it even harder to sit at #6 and take the next available guy from RGIII, because the next available guy is a 2nd round caliber prospect. I could live with Matt Barkley at #6 (though I'm not a big fan of him), and I could accept trading down and drafting Landry Jones, but not Ryan Tannehill or Nick Foles, guys who are rising solely because of the suddenly weak QB class outside the top 2.

As for QB drafting in general, it's an inexact science just like any position, but it's actually better than other positions (WR chief among them, same with DB). The thing with QBs is that teams fall in love with certain attributes like arm strength or size, or draft a one-year wonder who dominated with a strong supporting cast (usually guys who did nothing until senior year, then blew up), and don't do their homework in-depth. Teams have gotten better at avoiding these pitfalls though.

btw, I think Pro Days are probably the worst venue to analyze a QB. Not in pads? No pressure of any sort? WRs he's familiar with? You ought to do good at pro days if you're a legit prospect. I think if colleges eliminate Pro Days, you would see a lot less busts at EVERY position, because they are almost worse than useless for evaluation.

[Mahons21]

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=17117&draftyear=2007&genpos=

will not participate in any of the combine workouts

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft07/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2777414

On the advice of others, Russell decided not to work out at the combine.

Seriously bro, give it a rest.

---------- Post added January-29th-2012 at 04:46 PM ----------

1: Sanchez is nowhere near the prospect RGIII is.

2: If Sanchez WAS that kind of prospect then you'd at least consider it (and if he was that kind of prospect the Bears wouldn't have traded him anyway)

Again I was simply referncing a player in which many pundits thought we should trade up to get, and pointing out what the outcome would have been.

Uh

Rodgers

Brady

Brees

Both Mannings

Rivers

[Roethlisberger

Newton

Stafford

Schaub

Romo sits to pee

Ryan

Top 16 picks in bold.

I think we can agree that these guys are franchise (or at least potential/likely franchise) QBs right?

If you wanna be generous could throw in guys like Vick, Bradford, Cutler, , Dalton, Flacco.

Lots of first rounders. Lots of high first rounders.

Franchise QBs don't sure seem rare, especially when you're picking top 10 caliber guys.

So, I think what you should really say is that they're uncommon outside the high first round - there you have a 50/50 or so chance at getting one by picking there, compared to a 1% chance of picking outside that area. And the thing is, the 2nd tier QB prospects aren't even on the level of a Flacco or a Sanchez, let alone a Cutler or a Roethlisberger. So it makes it even harder to sit at #6 and take the next available guy from RGIII, because the next available guy is a 2nd round caliber prospect. I could live with Matt Barkley at #6 (though I'm not a big fan of him), and I could accept trading down and drafting Landry Jones, but not Ryan Tannehill or Nick Foles, guys who are rising solely because of the suddenly weak QB class outside the top 2.

You went back to the 98 draft, so I did as well;

Leaf 1st overall

Couch 1st overall

Akili Smith 3rd overall

Cade McCown

David Carr 1st overall

Joey Harrington

Carson Palmer

Alex Smith

Vince Young

Matt Leinart

Jamarcus Russell

Sanchez

Freeman (1 pick outside your top 16)

Braford

Ryan (Above average QB, not on the elite level of the other QBs in this list)

Flacco is nothing close to a franchise QB, in fact I have a hard time including Matt Ryan in that list, and Sam Bradford? You gotta be ****ting me. So I'll give you the Mannings 2, Rivers (though what happened to him this year when his playmakers weren't healthy?), Big Ben, Newton, Stafford. 6 franchise QBs out of a possible 21, roughly a 30% judging solely on drafts since 1998 that you'll acquire a franchise QB, when drafting in the top half of the first round of the draft.

Then there is Ryan Leaf, Russell, Couch, McCown, Akili Smith, Carr, Joey Harrington, Vince Young and Matt Leinart. 9 out of the total possible 21 are busts. Roughly a 45% chance that judging solely on drafts since 1998 that a QB picked in the top half of the first round of the draft will bust completely.

Essentially there is a greater likelihood that our two first round draft picks + a 2nd this year or something equivalent to it, would completely bust, than there is of what you're hoping for.

[Laxpunk2006]

Almost as tired as your literacy. Go back and look at what I wrote. Use multiple 1st round picks on a QB. There's the pick the team literally used on him, that's one first round draft choice, then there's the following 1st rd draft choice the year later thus 1+1 = 2

That's not how math works. We traded a future first round pick, plus mid round selections, for a first round pick in that year's draft. At no point was a second first round pick created. We basically gave up a collection of mid round picks to use a first round pick a year early. That is completely different than what Atlanta did this past year, giving up a late first round pick, AND 2012's first round pick, to take Julio Jones.

[Mahons21]

That's not how math works.

What do you mean that's not how math works? 1+1=2. We didn't use multiple first round picks to trade up and acquire Campbell, and I never said we did. Obviously every draft pick costs a.) the pick used on them b.) the picks used to acquire them if additional picks were needed. Had we not drafted Campbell would we not still have the pick we traded up to acquire? Obviously we would, thus we used said pick on him, as well as the additional picks.

The problem here is not the math, it's your literacy.

We traded a future first round pick, plus mid round selections, for a first round pick in that year's draft. At no point was a second first round pick created. We basically gave up a collection of mid round picks to use a first round pick a year early. That is completely different than what Atlanta did this past year, giving up a late first round pick, AND 2012's first round pick, to take Julio Jones.

I'm well aware that this is different than what Atlanta did this year. I never said it was the same. Anytime you trade up, you're using multiple picks on a single player, I don't know how to describe it any better than that to you.

[DogofWar1]

Fun fact, nothing I have quoted above is factual, it's an opinion.

Since you can't seem to grasp the concept of why this sets a team back, let me explain this to you. Every offseason all NFL teams are given a certain number of opportunities to improve the team. There's FA but that can be far too expensive as the Redskins well know, and then there's the draft. If every team in the NFL is improving with all their draft picks including their 1st round draft picks, and the Redskins don't have a 1st round pick, they will fall further and further behind in the level of talent. X can't much X-1, simple math.

Had the Redskins employed such a strategy, we might have Mark Sanchez right now, but no Orakpo, no T Williams, and since Mark clearly doesn't fit the mold, we would have been drafting again two years later, and we might have acquired a Locker/Gabbert this year (CAR was taking Newton, much like IND is taking Luck), rather than having a Kerrigan. In short, the likely outcome of your strategy over the past 3 seasons would give this team, Mark Sanchez, Locker/Gabbert, and no Kerrigan/Williams/Orakpo. I'm quite pleased we haven't attempted this strategy I must say.

I think the problem here is that you aren't evaluating the talent based on their skills, but rather simply where they go in the draft.

Sanchez and Gabbert, in terms of skills coming out of college, don't hold a candle to either Luck or RGIII. Sanchez and Gabbert started only for 1 full year. Luck and RGIII have been 3 year starters who have put up consistently good stats. RGIII has done it with nearly no talent around him his entire career, and Luck was a Heisman runner up this year, despite all his good WRs leaving and him only having TEs to throw to.

It's about the prospect and their skills. Luck and RGIII deserve to go in the top 10, and even 1 and 2. Sanchez and Gabbert did not.

Also, you can't seem to grasp the concept that our team will almost certainly be a bottom feeder in the East until we get a hit at QB. When you look at teams that win 10+ games in a year, they score points. POINTS. Those things we are unable to get. Even if our defense is great and we hold them to 10 points it won't matter if we can only score 7. Even if we have playmakers at WR and RB, it won't matter if the QB can't get them the ball, or turns it over next to either goal line.

We have spent 20 years chasing after subpar talent. We have two guys in this draft who are most certainly above any prospect we've drafted in that time.

Furthermore, there's plenty of talent to fill our team through the rest of the draft. Helu and Royster, 2/3rds of our future backfield, came from 4th and 6th round picks. Hankerson, who will most likely be a staple of our WR corp for years, was a 3rd rounder. Perry Riley was a 4th round pick. Admittedly, our picking pre-2010 wasn't exactly great, but then again, we had Vinny doing the picking, so I'm tempted to say that they don't count. Either way, so long as Allen and Shanahan are doing the drafting, I'm confident in the team's ability to find superb picks outside the 1st. And we don't even need to go into the number of players around the league who are non-1st rounders.

There are a certain number of positions on the team. If we can fill all the spots with quality guys, it hardly matters if they are 1sters or later or FAs. So long as we make smart personnel decisions in rounds 2-7, we can fill the team just fine, and won't fall behind. Comparatively, if we continue to just sit around hoping a QB falls to us, we're going STAY far behind other teams. Being proactive in getting a QB who Allen and Shanahan feel can win will be the most important step we take in becoming a consistently successful team.

[bigkobe81]

we have spent 20 years chasing after subpar talent. We have two guys in this draft who are most certainly above any prospect we've drafted in that time.

amen

[Laxpunk2006]

What do you mean that's not how math works? 1+1=2. We didn't use multiple first round picks to trade up and acquire Campbell, and I never said we did. Obviously every draft pick costs a.) the pick used on them b.) the picks used to acquire them if additional picks were needed. Had we not drafted Campbell would we not still have the pick we traded up to acquire? Obviously we would, thus we used said pick on him, as well as the additional picks.

The problem here is not the math, it's your literacy.

I'm well aware that this is different than what Atlanta did this year. I never said it was the same. Anytime you trade up, you're using multiple picks on a single player, I don't know how to describe it any better than that to you.

There is nothing wrong with my literacy.

Obviously we used multiple picks on Campbell we've both said as much. Attempting to belittle me here is completely unnecessary. I'm not taking personal shots at you so I would expect the same in return. Either politely clarify the points in question or move on. We should both be above personal attacks.

In post #492 you said :

Let's keep using multiple first round picks on QBs ie what we did to acquire Jason Campbell.

In post #518 you said :

We didn't use multiple first round picks to trade up and acquire Campbell, and I never said we did.

Do you not see why I may be confused as to what you actually think?

Regardless of when we used that pick (2005 instead of 2006), its still only one one pick. The total compensation for Campbell was 2005 third round selection, 2006 first round selection, 2006 fourth round selection.

[Mahons21]

Trading multiple picks to acquire a draft pick: IE Atlanta using two first round draft picks to acquire JJ

Using multiple picks on a single player: IE what the Redskins did with Campbell.

What you're pointing out is that, the rhetoric I used made my argument seem stronger that it truly was. However if you actually read the words, literally, it should be quite obvious what I'm saying. Thus the problem is lies in how you read the problem, not in the arithmetic. With that being said you did catch me on my linguistic debate trick.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Carson Palmer

Carson Palmer was a franchise QB, but wasn't the same after getting hurt in 08.

Ryan (Above average QB, not on the elite level of the other QBs in this list)

Ryan has his limitations, but he put up 29 TDs and 4000 yards last year, and averages about 3800 yards a season. He's no Drew Brees but he's a franchise guy. Might be the bottom of the first tier, but he's definitely better than the best of the second tier.

Flacco is nothing close to a franchise QB, in fact I have a hard time including Matt Ryan in that list, and Sam Bradford? You gotta be ****ting me. So I'll give you the Mannings 2, Rivers (though what happened to him this year when his playmakers weren't healthy?), Big Ben, Newton, Stafford. 6 franchise QBs out of a possible 21, roughly a 30% judging solely on drafts since 1998 that you'll acquire a franchise QB, when drafting in the top half of the first round of the draft.

Palmer was a franchise QB when healthy. Cutler is a franchise QB when healthy. McNabb was a franchise QB. Ryan is a franchise QB. So that's 10. Daunte Culpepper? Absolutely dominant when healthy, but he was throwing to Moss and Carter...he also threw for 4700 yards with no Carter and Moss missing 7 or so games before blowing out his knee. I'll say no. Same on Vick though he was an above-average starter.

Then there is Ryan Leaf, Russell, Couch, McCown, Akili Smith, Carr, Joey Harrington, Vince Young and Matt Leinart. 9 out of the total possible 21 are busts. Roughly a 45% chance that judging solely on drafts since 1998 that a QB picked in the top half of the first round of the draft will bust completely.

So you have...about a 50/50 hit rate!

Now the question is, is a coinflips chance of a franchise QB worth trading two likely starters at other positions (or really, a very good chance at 1 above-average starter at another position and a good chance at 2)? I say, yes, because of the importance of the position. You probably disagree. But the thing is, on a year to year basis, there is very little opportunity to acquire even an above-average starter, let alone a franchise guy. So you're either waiting for years on end for the "right" opportunity (and it doesn't help that we've blown 2 such opportunities in the past decade - Brees and Rodgers), or you sink development resources on a guy who is very likely to bust anyway.

[Mahons21]

It's not bust or franchise there's a group in between, so no it's not 50/50 and if you think it is you're kidding yourself. Just because you don't bust, doesn't mean you'll turn into a franchise QB, ie Alex Smith.

We seem to have very different definitions of franchise QBs, Palmer had two good years. In '07 his final year before injuring himself, he had 26 TDs, and 25 TO opportunities.

McNabb? Seriously? A QB that looks good in one system, and shows he's completely incapable of running any other one is a franchise guy? You don't seem to grasp the concept of QB/scheme harmony.

Cutler I agree is absolutely a franchise guy.

Matt Ryan doesn't strike me as some other-wordly talent like many of these other players. He's an above average QB on a very good team, and more than capable of fulfilling his role, but he's not the gamer many of these other QBs are. At second look I maybe be too rough on Ryan, he just never seems to impress me when I watch him play. Though looking at his statistics and efficiency he must be doing something right.