The Golden Rule

[bored of education]

If you do not have a franchise signal caller and one is available at your pick: TAKE HIM.

What are your thoughts on this golden rule of drafting?

ex. Lions/Chiefs drafting Stafford/Sanchez.

With the Lions and Chiefs having much more pressing needs, do they make the choice and pick that future franchise signal caller or address immediate needs?

Can not having a franchise signal caller be the most immediate need for any team in that situation?

[CashmoneyDrew]

I've always been torn on this rule because I really think you should build a team in the trenches as well. The Lions really could use better o-line help to keep a young QB upright but they have a second 1st rounder and the top second rounder in a draft with a strong o-line class. The Chiefs have a better offensive line with a young stud in Albert and a stud WR and TE. I could definitely see the chiefs taking Sanchez and then working on the defense with the rest of the draft.

[woodyx02]

I HATE THIS RULE. The term "franchise QB" needs to be defined. There are several teams picking in the top 10 that have guys they think can be the "FQB" but maybe hasnt proven his worth yet, so should those teams draft a QB? How many true "FQBs" are out there. I count 11 true FQBs (the Mannings, Romo, Ryan, Rogers, Brees, Brady/Cassel, Cutler, Rivers, Flacco, and BEN) So should 21 teams be looking for QBs? No. Thats why the rule sucks. There are 23 other positions that can be filled so why take a QB if you dont need one. It has been proven you can win without a great QB and you can lose with a great QB (Marino) If you have other needs and that player can come in and help now Id say skip the QB.

Taking a QB in the 1st round is risky. Not having that guy work out sets your team back years. Lets take this years draft for example. Stafford and Sanchez are the two no doubt 1st rounders right? Are any of these guys any different from Brady Quinn, Alex Smith, Byron Leftwhich or Kyle Boller. There are potential "FQB" in every draft. You can afford to be patient. How would Vikings fans feel if they passed on Peterson for Quinn?

[vidae]

I do believe in this rule but like it was stated, you have to define FRANCHISE QB. I'm not sure Sanchez fits into that. Stafford I can buy as being a franchise QB. Even though I didn't like him, I could see why Matt Ryan was considered a franchise QB. It really depends on your scouting department to make that decision but the rule is sound. QB is the most important position on your offense and you can't afford to miss on them, especially in the early first round.

I could see the Lions take OT with their first pick, seeing as how that line needs to be rebuilt, but I think they would be dumb to pass on Stafford.

[SenorGato]

Build your team first and you'll be amazed at how much easier the QB hunting process is.

[narf029]

I don't buy into the rule. If a team were to live or die by the rule then they'd reach for a "franchise QB" when in reality they're just reaching for a lower quality player because they play an important position. If a team feels the QB on board is in fact a good value at the time take him, otherwise build the line, build the defense, and plug a QB in later.

[SimonRath]

I don't like that rule at all.
Not every QB that goes in the 1st round is a franchise QB so just cause one is expected to go high doesnt mean hes worth it.
I like the idea of building the O-line first, which is what i wanted the Falcons to do, but it turned out good for us :)

[SchizophrenicBatman]

Taking a QB just to take a QB is kind of dumb...but it's safe to say they're worth way more than any other position. It's just physically impossible for Aaron Curry to effect a game the same way any QB can. I would say you have to put QB a tier above everything else, then there's the next tier which is LT, DE, CB and possibly DT. The rest follows under that, and I would stray away from taking anything in that last tier over a QB you like, unless he's a once in a decade prospect a la AD or Calvin Johnson

[princefielder28]

It comes down to the fact if you don't have one and the value is right then of course you go with the "franchise QB"

For a team like KC who has a capable Tyler Thigpen and the value at 3 for a "franchise QB" isn't there then you address one of your many needs.

[MetSox17]

What about the Detroit Lions? Do you draft linemen? They sure could use an offensive line and anything resembling a defense. Plus, they could wait for Bradford next year.

[georgiafan]

I know I sure am glad the Falcons didn't wait to build up the rest of the team before they took Matt Ryan.

[Xiomera]

I don't buy into this rule necessarily.

I am a huge advocate of the Lions following it this year, but that's more due to our individual team circumstances (i.e. using 5 bad QB's last year, not having a good QB in 50 years, the need to utilize Calvin Johnson to his fullest).

I also think that if you're picking #1 you really have to consider taking the top QB. There's a reason you're picking #1. I can't think of the last team to pick #1 overall that actually had a legitimate franchise QB in place.

[princefielder28]

What about the Detroit Lions? Do you draft linemen? They sure could use an offensive line and anything resembling a defense. Plus, they could wait for Bradford next year.

If they view Stafford as a suitable value at #1 and a "franchise QB" like many scouts believe then yes you go for it.

[Xiomera]

What about the Detroit Lions? Do you draft linemen? They sure could use an offensive line and anything resembling a defense. Plus, they could wait for Bradford next year.

You can't make plans for next year's draft. It's totally insane because there is no way of knowing if you'll be in a position to draft a certain player next year. As bad as the Lions looked, I don't think a lot of people had them pegged for the #1 overall pick this season. They were coming off a 7 win season. It was a deceiving total, but no one predicted 0-16. You'd be kidding yourself if you claimed that.

[MetSox17]

You can't make plans for next year's draft. It's totally insane because there is no way of knowing if you'll be in a position to draft a certain player next year. As bad as the Lions looked, I don't think a lot of people had them pegged for the #1 overall pick this season. They were coming off a 7 win season. It was a deceiving total, but no one predicted 0-16. You'd be kidding yourself if you claimed that.

I realize that, but it's not like you'd be passing on Stafford for a scrub. This is again, if you feel the lines are more important than the quarterback play right now, anyway. If you can bring in a Joe Thomas type, then find a Shawn Andrews in the middle of the first, plus another stud linebacker at the top of the second? All of a sudden your team is looking pretty good. Then you bring in a quarterback, when your team is stable, and you wouldn't feel pressured to throw him in to play with a garbage offensive line.

[georgiafan]

I realize that, but it's not like you'd be passing on Stafford for a scrub. This is again, if you feel the lines are more important than the quarterback play right now, anyway. If you can bring in a Joe Thomas type, then find a Shawn Andrews in the middle of the first, plus another stud linebacker at the top of the second? All of a sudden your team is looking pretty good. Then you bring in a quarterback, when your team is stable, and you wouldn't feel pressured to throw him in to play with a garbage offensive line.

If you make those improvments then you would likely win enough games to take yourself out of the race for the #1 QB.

[BuddyCHRIST]

I agree with it, I understand where people are saying that you need to build around him or you could ruin a good QB. But other positions like O-Line, RB, and WR can be found much easier than QB's on the open market.

Take a look at the Giants, when they picked Eli they were considered to have one of the worst lines in the NFL. And within a few years many people think they have the best line in the NFL, and its certainly not because they drafted a bunch of guys high. O-Lineman are a thing where if you can find the right mix of guys, they can perform better than having a 30 million dollar LT. I understand protecting the QB's blind side, but the LT position has overrated in today's defenses where half the league is playing 3-4 and complex blitzes are the major ways teams get to the QB. A LT can only neutralize one guy.

And everyone knows that RB's are a dime a dozen, and good QB's can make due with average WR's.

Obviously though its not an all or none principle, you shouldn't reach for guy's you don't like. But I think if your really trying to rebuild a franchise, a QB is where you should start.

[bored of education]

The golden rule I think should be dealt with on a case by case basis. It is so hard to say YOU SHOULD ALWAYS FOLLOW IT. It has to do with timing, other needs, coaching, font office, etc etc.

[Staubach12]

This isn't completely true IMO. I think when rebuilding a team, you MUST avoid the Carr Syndrome. You can't shell shock your QB. Get an offensive line!

[Iamcanadian]

It doesn't make any difference what we think of the golden rule, all you have to do is examine the draft over the last 25 years to see that practically every GM believes in it. Few teams ever make the playoffs without one and certainly extremely few teams advance without a solid QB.
Even in this off year when a lot of the top teams fell by the wayside over major injuries or suspensions, the 4 remaining teams are all solid at QB with Pittsburgh as the overwhelming favourite who also just happens to have a franchise QB.
If Detroit ranks Stafford in the top 3, he will be their pick. All you have to look at is Detroit and Arizona who have a combined close to 90 years of failure at making the playoffs, only once for both teams and look at their QBing position to find the reason why.
Anybody who doesn't believe in the golden rule is simply out of touch with pro football!
The myth that you can ruin a franchise QB by not having enough talent around him is absurd. Franchise QB have the unique ability to put failure behind them. They get up and go on to the next play without ever questioning their ability. They are all mentally tough. The Carr's and the Smith's who were taken #1 overall, simply lacked the mental toughness to do this. You could put them behind any OL in the NFL and they aren't going to ever be franchise QB's. Unfortunately assessing a QB's mental toughness isn't easy and a lot of poor GM's simply cannot do it and that accounts for a lot of the flops that occured at the position.

[bored of education]

Plus look at the teams with the top 10 defenses and their records..then look at team with top 10 offenses and their records.

Trenches + defense + servicable qb > Great prospect, ehh d, and no line

[Solomon]

Unless the "franchise QB" is the BPA or close to it I don't think teams should neccessarily take him if they have bigger needs.

Taking a so-called franchise QB when the rest of your team is lacking talent in other areas often results in setting a team back years (Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Cade McNown, Ryan Leaf, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Byron Leftwich etc).

[Staubach12]

Plus look at the teams with the top 10 defenses and their records..then look at team with top 10 offenses and their records.

Trenches + defense + servicable qb > Great prospect, ehh d, and no line

I agree 100%

[Halsey]

If you don't have a potential franchise QB then that IS the most pressing need. Less knowledgeable fans don't understand the value of QB's. They think football is all about the big, strong, fast athletes who make highlight plays. Most QB's aren't the elite athletes in terms of speed, agility, strength that these fans love. NFL teams, however, know the value of QB's. That's why good organizations like the Steelers, Colts, Ravens, Giants, Eagles, Chargers, etc will draft a potential franchise QB in rd 1 if they feel they need one. The last three teams to win a Super Bowl had a QB drafted in rnd 1 and 9 of 12 teams in the playoffs this year started a QB drafted in rnd 1.

[Halsey]

Plus look at the teams with the top 10 defenses and their records..then look at team with top 10 offenses and their records.

Trenches + defense + servicable qb > Great prospect, ehh d, and no line
Who are the teams with the best defenses in the league? Steelers and Ravens. What round was their starting QB drafted in. Who's the highest paid player on the Steelers. ;)

[BeerBaron]

Heh heh...

If your a struggling, miserable football team and you pass on the top QB in a draft (who 90% of your fans, being 'casual fans,' will think IS a franchise QB) then your essentially telling them "We're just going to blow off this year and waste it."

Anyone here who tries to argue otherwise isn't in that 90% of the casual fans. You see beyond this logic. However, you can't buy a few thousand seats to fill the stadium. 'Casual fans' tend to HATE their team's QB unless he's a great one. My brother is a Bucs fan and he HATES Garcia, and HATES Griese, and wanted all year to see some Josh Johnson. I've got friend whos a pretty casual fan of the 49ers. He hates everyone who's played QB for them since Steve Young and has been wanting them to draft someone high and better ever since. He was thrilled when they took Alex Smith, even though 99% of the people here will say that he wasn't an elite QB prospect and that he was just the best in the draft, but he was ecstatic that they took a QB high. He didn't work out and now he sure as **** wants to draft another one high.

Unless your a team like the Steelers or Bears where your fans have fallen in love with the ability to run and play defense traditionally, you NEED TO, as a franchise, TAKE highly rated QBs to keep your fans happy.

You'll lose them forever if say, your top QB is Dan ******* Orlovsky and you take an offensive lineman.

Hardcore fans, like those on this board, will see it as a pretty good idea to help that franchise for years down the line. Casual fans will see Dan ******* Orlovsky playing QB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVVzLQvmt_g

sigh.....

[Halsey]

Unless the "franchise QB" is the BPA or close to it I don't think teams should neccessarily take him if they have bigger needs.

Taking a so-called franchise QB when the rest of your team is lacking talent in other areas often results in setting a team back years (Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Cade McNown, Ryan Leaf, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Byron Leftwich etc).
How do you know who the BPA is? Nobody thought Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco were the BPA where they were drafted. And drafting a QB does NOT stop a team from addressing other needs. That's another myth.

[Staubach12]

If you don't have a potential franchise QB then that IS the most pressing need. Less knowledgeable fans don't understand the value of QB's. They think football is all about the big, strong, fast athletes who make highlight plays. Most QB's aren't the elite athletes in terms of speed, agility, strength that these fans love. NFL teams, however, know the value of QB's. That's why good organizations like the Steelers, Colts, Ravens, Giants, Eagles, Chargers, etc will draft a potential franchise QB in rd 1 if they feel they need one. The last three teams to win a Super Bowl had a QB drafted in rnd 1 and 9 of 12 teams in the playoffs this ear started a QB drafted in rnd 1.

First of all, if you're trying to say this board is full of less-knowledgeable fans, you're sadly mistaken. This is one of the better boards out there. As far as your argument, yes QBs are a big deal. However, no QB is going to have success with no protection. For a rookie QB to develop, he must be able to focus on his decision making, not where the sack is coming from.

[d34ng3l021]

After watching the Falcons last year, I think I am going to have to agree with the golden rule.

While you may not have a great D or OL immediately, you will slowly accumulate that (young players getting better, draft, FA, trade). Grabbing a possible franchise QB (there are only 1-2 in a draft. stafford is the only one in this draft) is a huge hit or miss risk, but if it hits, then its invaluable. A franchise QB is arguably the most important thing you could ask for, including a dominating DL/OL (give me a franchise QB with a serviceable DL/OL), a run game (look at denver and new orleans. they open up the run with their run), or LBs and DBs. A franchise QB makes everyone on the offensive side of the ball look better. Average WR, RB, and OL become so much better because of the accuracy, the threat of the deep ball, and pocket presence of the QB.

The beginning may be hard for the QB, but he will grow with the team if the team can find a way to protect him and give him weapons.

[Solomon]

If you don't have a potential franchise QB then that IS the most pressing need. Less knowledgeable fans don't understand the value of QB's. They think football is all about the big, strong, fast athletes who make highlight plays. Most QB's aren't the elite athletes in terms of speed, agility, strength that these fans love. NFL teams, however, know the value of QB's. That's why good organizations like the Steelers, Colts, Ravens, Giants, Eagles, Chargers, etc will draft a potential franchise QB in rd 1 if they feel they need one. The last three teams to win a Super Bowl had a QB drafted in rnd 1 and 9 of 12 teams in the playoffs this year started a QB drafted in rnd 1.

The problem is that identifying a potential "franchise QB" is a crapshoot. Moreso than any other position. Guys like Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, Tony Romo and Matt Schaub were not seen as franchise QBs coming out of college but I would put them among the the top 12 QBs in the league. But they have all been put in positions where they can succeed.

Also the success of a QB depends largely on so many factors surrounding him on the field (coaching, receivers, running game to ease pressure, line to protect him). That's one of the reasons so many QBs dubbed franchise signal callers get thrown to the wolves and fail. While at the same time someone like Matt Cassell falls into a situation with a very good team that grooms him for a few years and he looks like a pro-bowler.

[Halsey]

First of all, if you're trying to say this board is full of less-knowledgeable fans, you're sadly mistaken. This is one of the better boards out there. As far as your argument, yes QBs are a big deal. However, no QB is going to have success with no protection.

In the NFL teams can acquire a QB and improve their O-line at the same time. The myth that you can only do one at a time is nonsense. There's no rule that says a team has to choose to either draft a QB or improve their O-line. Whatever football league you watch must have different rules.

[Babylon]

I just believe in evaluating players. To force a player at your pick because of team need is foolish. Personally i think Stafford is the best and highest rated player in this draft, therefore it makes sense for Detroit who needs a QB. If he were the 3-5th rated player and they took him at 1 then it's a bad pick in my opinion. In that case if they really like the guy trade down a bit and take him later.

[Halsey]

The problem is that identifying a potential "franchise QB" is a crapshoot. Moreso than any other position. Guys like Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, Tony Romo and Matt Schaub were not seen as franchise QBs coming out of college but I would put them among the the top 12 QBs in the league. But they have all been put in positions where they can succeed.

Also the success of a QB depends largely on so many factors surrounding him on the field (coaching, receivers, running game to ease pressure, line to protect him). That's one of the reasons so many QBs dubbed franchise signal callers get thrown to the wolves and fail. While at the same time someone like Matt Cassell falls into a situation with a very good team that grooms him for a few years and he looks like a pro-bowler.

About 1 out of every 2 or 3 QB's drafted in the first round become quality starters. The chances of finding one after the first round go WAY down. Finding a Tom Brady doesn't happen to every team. Brady was sitting the bench until Drew Bledsoe(1st overall pick) got hurt. And Brees was the first pick of the second round. 1 pick away from being a first rounder. It's not really debateble. Teams like the Steelers and Eagles draft QB's and pay them $100 million dollar contracts for a reason. I'll take their opinion over fans who think it's all about the flashy athletes.

[Menardo75]

The rule does make sense, but I really think it is situational. If your guys up front are not going to get it done then it really doesn't matter who you have behind them. If I was the Lions I would be deciding who I like more between Eugene Monroe, and Andre Smith with the pick being one of them.

[Halsey]

The rule does make sense, but I really think it is situational. If your guys up front are not going to get it done then it really doesn't matter who you have behind them. If I was the Lions I would be deciding who I like more between Eugene Monroe, and Andre Smith with the pick being one of them.

The Lions would be fools to take Smith or Monroe with the #1 pick They took an OT in the first round last year and have a total of 3 OT's drafted in the first round on their roster. If they really want a OT in the first they can take one with the first rounder they got from the Cowboys. The Lions pick will come down to Stafford or maybe Sanchez. Their new coach even told everyone that:

"We need to find a replacement for Bobby Lane"

Unless Stafford does something to hurt his stock, the #1 pick is as good as made.

[Vox Populi]

Big Ben, Joe Flacco, Donovan McNabb. Then we've got Kurt Warner who is an anomaly, but the fact that 3/4 of the guys in the Conference Championship games were 1st rounders is a pretty good indication as to what kind of quarterbacks win championships.

Brady is the exception to the rule obviously and there are hundreds of players picked late in the draft who never even see the field, much less make the roster and carry a team to 3 super bowl victories. You also can't expect those late round guys to come in and win as early as the generally more pro ready 1st rounders.

I am very much in agreement with this rule.

[princefielder28]

The rule does make sense, but I really think it is situational. If your guys up front are not going to get it done then it really doesn't matter who you have behind them. If I was the Lions I would be deciding who I like more between Eugene Monroe, and Andre Smith with the pick being one of them.

The Lions biggest problem isn't so much the offensive line as it is the defense as a whole. Is there anyone worthy of the 1st overall pick on defense? NO. So you have to look at what offensive player will make the greatest impact for this franchise moving forward. LT? Jeff Backus isn't the greatest LT in the world but he is average and the Lions could certainly do worse. QB? Dan Orlovsky, Daunte Culpepper, and Drew Stanton are all QBs who have been given a chance and failed miserably. Matthew Stafford may not be ready from day one, but he does have the tools and ability to develop into a franchise QB, and since, in all likelihood, he won't be starting from day one, you have time to fix the offensive line in front of him and address the defense as well. The Lions do have Pick 20 and 33, and with a deep OT class, they can address the future of their LT position with one of those picks.

[Crickett]

It doesn't matter what the Lions do.

They tried building up their offensive line. They used first round picks to draft bookend tackles (Backus and McDougle). Didn't work. They used a third overall pick on a "franchise" signal caller (Harrington). Didn't work. They tried to sign (Az Zahir Hakim, James Stewart & Bill Schroeder) and draft (Charles Rogers, Roy Williams, Kevin Jones, Mike Williams, Brian Calhoun, Calvin Johnson and Kevin Smith) an endless supply of offensive weapons. That didn't work either.

The lesson to be learned hereis: It doesn't matter what Detroit does, it's not going to work.

It always depends on the situation. Sure, Atlanta fans are glad they didn't wait before they built up their team before they drafted a franchise signal caller early. But how did it work out for Tennessee and Arizona? Vince Young and Matt Leinart sure contributed a lot to their playoff runs.

[Solomon]

How do you know who the BPA is? Nobody thought Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco were the BPA where they were drafted. And drafting a QB does NOT stop a team from addressing other needs. That's another myth.

Teams have scouting departments to tell them who the BPA is...

Plenty of people thought Matt Ryan was the BPA where he was drafted.

My point was that teams picking in the top 5 or 10 shouldn't reach on a QB just because he plays an important position.

And drafting for other needs does NOT stop a team from addressing QB later on in the draft or in future drafts.

You use Joe Flacco as an example but Baltmore has been building the rest of that team for years until the front office decided to move up for Flacco this year. Baltimore's decision making actually goes against your logic.

[Crickett]

Plenty of people thought Matt Ryan was the BPA where he was drafted.

Actually, IIRC, the "BPA" was Glenn Dorsey. Just sayin'.

[Menardo75]

The Lions biggest problem isn't so much the offensive line as it is the defense as a whole. Is there anyone worthy of the 1st overall pick on defense? NO. So you have to look at what offensive player will make the greatest impact for this franchise moving forward. LT? Jeff Backus isn't the greatest LT in the world but he is average and the Lions could certainly do worse. QB? Dan Orlovsky, Daunte Culpepper, and Drew Stanton are all QBs who have been given a chance and failed miserably. Matthew Stafford may not be ready from day one, but he does have the tools and ability to develop into a franchise QB, and since, in all likelihood, he won't be starting from day one, you have time to fix the offensive line in front of him and address the defense as well. The Lions do have Pick 20 and 33, and with a deep OT class, they can address the future of their LT position with one of those picks.

I totally agree with that i'm just saying the rule is situational. I just think taking an OT at that pick would be safer. They would need to decide if they are ok with Bakus as their LT. If that's the case Stafford is the pick. Their next pick needs to be defense.

[Halsey]

Teams have scouting departments to tell them who the BPA is...

Plenty of people thought Matt Ryan was the BPA where he was drafted.

My point was that teams picking in the top 5 or 10 shouldn't reach on a QB just because he plays an important position.

And drafting for other needs does NOT stop a team from addressing QB later on in the draft or in future drafts.

You use Joe Flacco as an example but Baltmore has been building the rest of that team for years until the front office decided to move up for Flacco this year. Baltimore's decision making actually goes against your logic.

Every team is in a continuous building mode...lol. I swear some of you watch a different league that you think is the NFL. No team takes on offseason off and doesn't add players to their team. The golden rule states a team should not pass on a potential franchise QB if they don't feel they already have one. The Ravens have followed that rule twice in recent years with Boller and Flacco. You're trying to say that the Ravens didn't follow the golden rule by doing exactly what the golden rule says....:D

[Solomon]

About 1 out of every 2 or 3 QB's drafted in the first round become quality starters. The chances of finding one after the first round go WAY down. Finding a Tom Brady doesn't happen to every team. Brady was sitting the bench until Drew Bledsoe(1st overall pick) got hurt. And Brees was the first pick of the second round. 1 pick away from being a first rounder. It's not really debateble. Teams like the Steelers and Eagles draft QB's and pay them $100 million dollar contracts for a reason. I'll take their opinion over fans who think it's all about the flashy athletes.

Exactly, Brees was the first pick of the second round. So a team drafting high would have been able to take another position with their first rounder, then go after Brees with their second rounder.

Teams like New England build teams and groom QBs. I'll take their opinion over fans who think it's all about flashy Quarterbacks.

I don't tihnk you understand what I'm saying at all. I don't believe in the so called "Golden Rule". I do believe in drafting QBs in the first round as long as they are or are near the highest ranked prospect on the board at the time. And as long as they are not set up for failure by the franchise in question.

[CC.SD]

I am a proponent of this rule, because if you have a QB you can believe in, it sets the tone of your team. Building around the QB means by the time your franchise is ready to challenge, he has experience. You don't end up with a bunch of vets waiting for the green QB to get with the program.

1. QB
2. O-line
3. Defense
4. Weapons on offense.

Would be my org chart.

[Solomon]

Every team is in a continuous building mode...lol. I swear some of you watch a different league that you think is the NFL. No team takes on offseason off and doesn't add players to their team. The golden rule states a team should not pass on a potential franchise QB if they don't feel they already have one. The Ravens have followed that rule twice in recent years with Boller and Flacco. You're trying to say that the Ravens didn't follow the golden rule by doing exactly what the golden rule says....:D

Well in 2002 they passed on Patrick Ramsey for Ed Reed.

And in 2003 they chose Boller with their SECOND first rounder which they traded for. With their first 1st rounder they took Terrell Suggs instead of trading up for Byron Leftwich which all the experts touting the "golden rule" said they should have done.

So the Ravens did not do what the golden rule says :D

[Halsey]

Exactly, Brees was the first pick of the second round. So a team drafting high would have been able to take another position with their first rounder, then go after Brees with their second rounder.



Just stop, you're like arguing with a spoiled 13 year old who thinks he knows it all despite FACTS that prove him wrong. When the Chargers lost confidence in Brees after a couple of rough years to start his career, what did they do: they took Phillip Rivers in the first. By and large, good teams will draft QB's high if they need them and pay big bucks for them The golden rule is widely followed and works. Either you know it or you're wrong. Your choice.

[CC.SD]

Well in 2002 they passed on Patrick Ramsey for Ed Reed.

And in 2003 they chose Boller with their SECOND first rounder which they traded for. With their first 1st rounder they took Terrell Suggs instead of trading up for Byron Leftwich which all the experts touting the "golden rule" said they should have done.

So the Ravens did not do what the golden rule says :D

Yeah but the Ravens are an exceptional case because you could argue that no team has ever prioritized their defense as much as they have. Really from the beginning of their existence. So far the experiment seems to be working.

[Hines]

A franchise quarterback is very important, but I think a franchise LT is just as important.

If the Lions were smart, they would draft Andre Smith or someone along those lines to make sure Culpepper, Kitna, Henson, or whoever else they have at QB has enough time to throw the ball to Calvin.

I would go with Andre Smith at number 1.

[CC.SD]

A franchise quarterback is very important, but I think a franchise LT is just as important.

If the Lions were smart, they would draft Andre Smith or someone along those lines to make sure Culpepper, Kitna, Henson, or whoever else they have at QB has enough time to throw the ball to Calvin.

I would go with Andre Smith at number 1.

The Lions are too cheap to admit Backus is not the answer and needs to be replaced by a blue chip. Stafford will have as good a shot at being a franchise QB over there as anyone would.

[Solomon]

Just stop, you're like arguing with a spoiled 13 year old who thinks he knows it all despite FACTS that prove him wrong. When the Chargers lost confidence in Brees after a couple of rough years to start his career, what did they do: they took Phillip Rivers in the first. By and large, good teams will draft QB's high if they need them and pay big bucks for them The golden rule is widely followed and works. Either you know it or you're wrong. Your choice.

Putting things in capital letters doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you do it.

You're contradicting yourself over and over again. If the golden rule is widely followed why do players like Flacco, Rodgers and Quinn drop to the bottom half of the first round? Because some teams decide that another prospect is the best fit despite not having a franchise QB already in place.

Resorting to insults just proves that you don't have what it takes to have a rational debate. It makes you look like a 13 year old, not me.

[bored of education]

FACTS > facts btw

[Crickett]

Putting things in capital letters doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you do it.


http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/4989/0/Caps_Lock.ashx

[Hines]

The Lions are too cheap to admit Backus is not the answer and needs to be replaced by a blue chip. Stafford will have as good a shot at being a franchise QB over there as anyone would.

That may be true, but I hope the new GM and Schwartz make a new transformation of that orgination. They have some good pieces on both sides of the ball, but terrible players at others.

I would try and trade or cut Backus and draft Smith for LT. Couldn't Backus play G too?

[Babylon]

A franchise quarterback is very important, but I think a franchise LT is just as important.

If the Lions were smart, they would draft Andre Smith or someone along those lines to make sure Culpepper, Kitna, Henson, or whoever else they have at QB has enough time to throw the ball to Calvin.

I would go with Andre Smith at number 1.


Who's your franchise LT there in Pittsburgh?

[San Diego Chicken]

I just think it all depends on what type of team you're trying to be. Two examples come to mind from last year's draft - Miami and Atlanta.

Miami decided they wanted to be a ball control type of team that is strong on fundamentals. So they drafted Jake Long, and signed Pennington, who is more of a caretaker QB. Good desisions, resulting in a huge turnaround in their fortunes.

Atlanta decided that after the Vick and Petrino situations, they needed stronger leadership and a signal caller they could trust over the long term, so they drafted a potential franchise QB known for his intangibles and mental toughness.

It can go both ways, teams have won with hall of fame QB's, like Aikman, Montana, Elway etc, and some have won with the Jeff Hostetlers and Brad Johnsons. Sometimes Super Bowl winning QB's are at the top of their draft class, and sometimes they're drafted in the late rounds or not even drafted at all. I just feel that if you have a plan & philosophy that's set in stone, and everything you do reflects that plan, you have a chance to be successful. Not just in football, but in life too.

[Hines]

Who's your franchise LT there in Pittsburgh?

Noone and you see how bad Ben gets beat up.

[CC.SD]

FACTS > facts btw

FAXZORZ>FACTS>facts

[Babylon]

Noone and you see how bad Ben gets beat up.

Good point. I guess my point was they got as far as they did, and i think they'll go farther, with a less than super OT. Same can be said for all the teams left.

[CC.SD]

Good point. I guess my point was they got as far as they did, and i think they'll go farther, with a less than super OT. Same can be said for all the teams left.

I don't know, I think that's a pretty flimsy point. You don't need a franchise LT if you have the #1 defense. K...get it started Detroit!

[Turtlepower]

FAXZORZ>FACTS>facts

JORDYZZZZ NELSON FAXZORZ>FACTS>facts

[CC.SD]

JORDYZZZZ NELSON FAXZORZ>FACTS>facts

Oh noesszzzz Jordy Thread takeover

http://www.thefantasykickoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/jordy-nelson-packers-draft_nc.jpg

ZZzzzzZ

[giantsfan]

JORDYZZZZZZZZZZZ can play for two teams at the same time can't he? Number 1 PICKZZZZZ ZOMGZ!!!!1!!

[Crickett]

JORDYZZZZZZZZZZZ can play for two teams at the same time can't he? Number 1 PICKZZZZZ ZOMGZ!!!!1!!

JORDYZZZZZZZZZ can play all 24 positions on the offensive, defense and kicking/punting for all 32 teams simultaneously and have a league where every team is tied for 1st place with nothing but 16-0 RECORDZZZZZZZZZZ.

[d34ng3l021]

Noone and you see how bad Ben gets beat up.

Holding onto the ball for too long is also a huge reason for Ben getting beat up.

[Hines]

Holding onto the ball for too long is also a huge reason for Ben getting beat up.

Well yeah, but it also helps to know that when you drop back, you wont have a defender in your face right away.

[CC.SD]

JORDYZZZZZZZZZ can play all 24 positions on the offensive, defense and kicking/punting for all 32 teams simultaneously and have a league where every team is tied for 1st place with nothing but 16-0 RECORDZZZZZZZZZZ.

ZZZZzzJordyzzz punts the ball and then downs it himself at the one zomgz every.time.

[giantsfan]

ZZZZzzJordyzzz punts the ball and then downs it himself at the one zomgz every.time.

JORDYZZZZZZ doesn't punt out of safety concerns for the airlines. He just punches the ball off the uprights and then guides it with his mind.

[CC.SD]

JORDYZZZZZZ doesn't punt out of safety concerns for the airlines. He just punches the ball off the uprights and then guides it with his mind.

lawlz who are we kidding Jordyzzz teams never get to 4th down.

[Scott Wright]

I think we all know what a big proponent of this rule I am.

All I can say is look at the good teams in the league and then look at the bad ones. 9 times out of 10 what separates them is quarterback play.

You can have every other piece in place but if you don't have a quarterback you are screwed. Just as Carolina and Minnesota.

[CC.SD]

I think we all know what a big proponent of this rule I am.

All I can say is look at the good teams in the league and then look at the bad ones. 9 times out of 10 what separates them is quarterback play.

You can have every other piece in place but if you don't have a quarterback you are screwed. Just as Carolina and Minnesota.

You are wise as always, Scott, I agree 100%. I notice you did not weigh in on Jordy Nelson...

[Scott Wright]

I heard Jordy Nelson doesn't read books...

He just stares them down until they give him the information he wants.

[CC.SD]

I heard Jordy Nelson doesn't read books...

He just stares them down until they give him the information he wants.

http://www.realtown.com/img/articles/_RealTown_Seal_of_Approval.JPG

[Paranoidmoonduck]

This is basically the stance I take on this "golden rule".

It's heart is in the right place, but the NFL draft has no room for any kind of dictatorial draft logic that would potentially ignore the circumstances of the particular draft or the particular team drafting.

It's absolutely true that the chance to draft a good to great quarterback prospect is a rare chance. The value of the position tends to push all the good ones up into the top half of the first round and it pushes all the great ones into the top 10 picks. That means you either have to deal with a currently unrealistic team-imposed trade structure to move up that far to get a quarterback prospect worth risking that kind of cost on, or you have to have a very bad season, something you don't plan on repeating. This leads a lot of teams to fall prey to the idea, "I don't plan on having to pick this high any time soon. I might as well take the highest value position while I'm here." This is a mistake. Or more precisely, this thinking without any pre-planning is a mistake.

My stance on the subject is one I developed when the Raiders had the #1 overall pick. While it's true that quarterback is a position that usually takes about as long if not longer to develop than any other position, it also has one of the most tenuous development cycles. Which is to say, early disruption to the team around the quarterback tends to damage that passer's chances moving forward more than any other position.

So what does this mean? The "golden rule" applies to mediocre teams who have had remarkably rough years but have a quick rebound potential. But it shouldn't apply to teams who are so very far away from even mediocrity that the quarterback they'd be picking would literally be the first major piece of the team's rebuilding. I think teams that do that invite major trouble. What teams in that situation need to do is start stocking the pieces that, in and of themselves, do little to improve the team's win-loss record immediately, but who will greatly expand the eventually picked quarterback's professional potential when he arrives.

Let's look at two contradicting examples...

In 1995, the Indianapolis Colts had a pretty good idea that Jim Harbaugh wasn't the going to be much of a solution much longer. They were pretty much locked into the middle of the 1st round during this time and used their first round picks in '96 and '97 on two huge supporting pieces: first WR Marvin Harrison and then LT Tarik Glenn (to pair with the already present Marshall Faulk). By the time the team's offense had mostly collapsed and those two building blocks on the offense had some time to adjust to the NFL (and, more importantly, had shown significant ability), the team went out and scored Peyton Manning. Manning didn't step onto a great team, but he stepped onto a team that had it's offensive talent focused in the correct way and was simply waiting for the quarterback to pull it all together. On top of that, once the team was unsure about Faulk's future with the team, they ditched him and got another top shelf runner in there (Edgerrin James) immediately.

Alternatively...

In 2003, the San Francisco 49ers were winding down from their general success of the 1990's. They were still picking in the latter half of the 1st round and in anticipation of the coming fall, they tried to do something similar to what Indianapolis had done. With their first round picks in '03 and '04, they picked up WR Rashaun Woods and LT Kwame Harris (the fact that they tried to do the right thing here, but failed, needs to be emphasized. Ultimately, if you don't draft well, no matter what order you build your team in, it won't work like you hoped). Unfortunately, neither of these players demonstrated very substantial skill. Then the bottom of the team fell out and they were stuck at the top of a weak 2005 draft looking at quarterback prospect Alex Smith. Despite the blocks they had tried to install which might have precipitated Smith's eventual success not looking like particularly good NFL players, the team went ahead and make the pick. The folly of the move was quickly apparent, and the team spent the next couple drafts trying to re-install those pieces (with receiver Vernon Davis and offensive lineman Joe Staley). Of course, it needs to be pointed out that San Francisco had it's share of bad luck. They theoretically did the right thing, but the parts they installed didn't work at all and the team was in far too much constant flux for Smith to succeed.

So what does this all mean? There's no right way to build a team. But there appears to be a wrong way. Some teams are ready to put in a young quarterback and take off (like Atlanta this past season). Some teams (Oakland Raiders in '07) are so prone to constant flux that it might never appear like the right time to take a quarterback, and so one might be tempted to just seize the opportunity when it comes along. But some teams are so far from being successful, that the quarterback they pick would be done a disservice and his development could become seriously hampered. In that situation, taking skill players and lineman (players who are less effected by the lack of consistency around them) and priming the quarterback spot for the right guy at the right time is the way to go. Because, from what I can see, if it isn't the right guy + the right time, even the right guy will look wrong.

This doesn't even address the idea that not all elite quarterback prospects are created equal in the eyes of a given team, and that some teams may feel pushed into taking a quarterback due to this "golden rule" that they need to convince themselves is as good as they hope he will be instead of waiting for the guy they actually really want. But that's another and much less precise subject.
____________

In regards to this year's draft, this is how I see it.

Detroit - has some pieces in place. While a left tackle is definitely lacking, they'd probably want to sit their rookie quarterback for most of the first year anyway. They made whoever it is they pick's life that much easier by having Calvin Johnson on that team. They also suffer from the situation of having not many other feasible options besides quarterback in this draft.

Kansas City - That running game is a bit of a question mark, but otherwise this team is primed to draft a quarterback.

Seattle - As far as I can tell, that team either need to try and do a quick reload this year by picking someone like Crabtree or they need to break that team apart further. Either way, quarterback isn't a smart move.

[jnew76]

Trying to get this thread back on track, I will say this... Unless you have a grade on a QB that is equal to that of Elway, Palmer, P. Manning.... etc. I think you should do everything in your power to trade out of the pick!!!!!

There is too much of a bust factor in taking QB's #1. It is about a 50/50 proposition as far as the last 10 years go.

Comparing #1 overall QB's since 1998

98 - P. Manning
99 - Couch
01 - Vick
02 - Carr
03 - Palmer
04 - E. Manning
05 - Smith
06 - Russell

Of the 8 QB's that have been drafted you can only say that 3 of them are franchise signal callers. Russell may still develop, but has not shown that he will. 2 are not playing in the NFL right now. A. Smith might not ever play again.

Because of the current rookie salary structure you have to pay a #1 draft pick 30+ Million guaranteed. You are playing russian roulette with your franchise by keeping the #1 pick and taking any player.

Approx 250 players will be drafted this year. I would rather have 12-15 of those 250 players than 7 of them and 60 Million (value of Jake Long's contract) being paid to just one of them. You can miss on half of the 12 picks and still have an unbelievable draft. You can have a draft that immediately upgrades your team in all three phases of the game.

I would prefer to be drafting in the 10-15 range of the first round. At #10, the Patriots drafted Jerod Mayo and signed him to a contract of 5years/18.9 Million with 13.8M guaranteed... I can live with missing on that player, especially if I have accumulated more picks in the process.

As for the Trade Value chart "myth" - IMO the trade value chart is no longer relavent for the first 10 picks - I would gladly trade out of the #1 pick in order not be obligated to give 30M guaranteed to a player that did not have a Manning/Palmer grade. I would listen to every offer and take the best one no matter how "lopsided" it looked relavent to the trade value chart. In the end the pick is only worth what you can get for it... PERIOD.

That is my theory.

[Scott Wright]

I wholeheartedly agree that bad teams shouldn't play young quarterbacks if they can't protect or if they don't have any weapons for him. With that said if they have a shot at drafting a top signal caller they need to get him in the fold.

There is nothing wrong with sitting a guy for a year or two. The problem is teams cave and play these guys too soon.

[Paranoidmoonduck]

I wholeheartedly agree that bad teams shouldn't play young quarterbacks if they can't protect or if they don't have any weapons for him. With that said if they have a shot at drafting a top signal caller they need to get him in the fold.

There is nothing wrong with sitting a guy for a year or two. The problem is teams cave and play these guys too soon.

That's a simple way of observing it, but the job turnover rate for personnel guys and coaches is often too quick for them to take the slower route with highly picked quarterbacks.

My point is that it's generally in the best interest of both the quarterback and the coaches and the general managers for the guy to have as immediate success as possible. And there are definite ways to help that be the case that observing "the golden rule" doesn't aptly communicate.

[jnew76]

I wholeheartedly agree that bad teams shouldn't play young quarterbacks if they can't protect or if they don't have any weapons for him. With that said if they have a shot at drafting a top signal caller they need to get him in the fold.

There is nothing wrong with sitting a guy for a year or two. The problem is teams cave and play these guys too soon.

Yeah, but 30+Mil guaranteed to sit for 2 years? It just does not make sense financially! One year, maybe. But 2 years is cap suicide. With that investment you have to have someone that can come in and play at a high level almost immediately.

If the NFL had a rookie salary cap the Golden Rule would have much more merit.

[MidwayMonster31]

It also depends on how good that quarterback is. In the draft, when you pick a position for the sake of need without considering how good that player is, bad things usually happen. In that list that jnew used, there were only 3 quarterbacks worthy of that pick. Like any other draft pick, it's really just a shot in the dark. All you can do is hope you scouted him well and put him in the right spot.

[furiousgod]

Build your team first and you'll be amazed at how much easier the QB hunting process is.


i agree. most franchise qb's look like turds when there olines barely perfom at a college lvl and you allways have miserable field positioning because your defense/special teams suck.

[Shane P. Hallam]

That's a simple way of observing it, but the job turnover rate for personnel guys and coaches is often too quick for them to take the slower route with highly picked quarterbacks.

My point is that it's generally in the best interest of both the quarterback and the coaches and the general managers for the guy to have as immediate success as possible. And there are definite ways to help that be the case that observing "the golden rule" doesn't aptly communicate.

Thus why a team should generally do what Miami and Atlanta did. Get a QB, get an O-lineman or two, and go with that.

[Solomon]

Alright let me try to rationalize all my thoughts on this subject in one post and I'll try to be as concise as possible.

I do recognize the value of a franchise QB to a team. I also think that if a front office strongly believes that a QB is worth a high first round pick then by all means they should pull the trigger. Right now I strongly feel that the Lions should take Stafford at #1. That being said I think sometimes organizations have to look at the pros and cons of taking a supposed franchise quarterback against filling other needs with possibly higher valued prospects.

Here are my arguments against the golden rule.

1, the legitimacy of "the rule":

Frankly I don't believe that there any "rules" to drafting. Just like there are many different ways to build a franchise there are many different methods of building through the draft. To say that there is one rule for every team, minimizes that reality. Different front offices (even successful ones) do different things.

Saying there is a "golden rule" is akin to saying that there should be no exceptions to breaking it. However there are certain situations where the "golden rule" might not apply for a team's situation. When it seems more benificial for a quarterback deprived team to take a player at another position instead.

For example in 2006. The Texans are drafting 1st overall. At this point it is quite apparent that David Carr is not a franchise QB so the Texans do not have one. Most people seem to think that Vince Young and Matt Leinart are franchise QBs (and others say Jay Cutler is as well). The golden rule in his case says they should not pass on either of the franchise signal callers. However almost everyone seems to think that the Texans should take either Mario Williams or Reggie Bush #1 since in most people's minds they are the clearcut best prospects (there are a minority of people who want Young or D'Brickahaw Ferguson instead). So in 2006 the Texans not only broke the rule, most prognosticators commended them for it saying that they made the right decision. One year later the Texans trade two second rounders for whom they hope is a franchise QB.

2, against the theory that most teams subscribe to the golden rule:

Alot of people think that the majority of teams (especially the good ones) in the league subscribe to the "golden rule".

Here's my beef with that. Kyle Boller, Aaron Rodgers, Brady Quinn and Joe Flacco were all taken in the latter half of the first round. Several times in this thread alone I've heard these QBs called "franchise QBs" as prospects. But they were each passed on by at least 15 teams, more than half of which probably did not have franchise QBs of their own.

Kyle Boller is a good example. The Ravens traded up to nab him. It has been argued by someone in this thread that the Ravens saw in him a franchise QB and therefore trading up for him proves that they adhered to the golden rule. However they chose Terrell Suggs at tenth overall, nine picks before Boller. If they truly believed that Boller was a franchise QB and also believed absolutely in the golden rule why did they pass on Boller with their first 1st rounder? If they were truly adhering to the rule they would have taken Boller right away, instead they chose a player they thought more highly of first, then went after the QB they wanted after. In essence prioritizing another player (Suggs) over the aquisition of a franchise QB.

[umphrey]

Until the Lions make a drastic turnaround every quarterback there will be a failure and every rookie a bust.

However, their new GM might make the pick looking to get his man right away when he has a chance, even though the Lions will be picking top 10-5 next year too.

[Shane P. Hallam]

Alright let me try to rationalize all my thoughts on this subject in one post and I'll try to be as concise as possible.

I do recognize the value of a franchise QB to a team. I also think that if a front office strongly believes that a QB is worth a high first round pick then by all means they should pull the trigger. Right now I strongly feel that the Lions should take Stafford at #1. That being said I think sometimes organizations have to look at the pros and cons of taking a supposed franchise quarterback against filling other needs with possibly higher valued prospects.

Here are my arguments against the golden rule.

1, the legitimacy of "the rule":

Frankly I don't believe that there any "rules" to drafting. Just like there are many different ways to build a franchise there are many different methods of building through the draft. To say that there is one rule for every team, minimizes that reality. Different front offices (even successful ones) do different things.

Saying there is a "golden rule" is akin to saying that there should be no exceptions to breaking it. However there are certain situations where the "golden rule" might not apply for a team's situation. When it seems more benificial for a quarterback deprived team to take a player at another position instead.

For example in 2006. The Texans are drafting 1st overall. At this point it is quite apparent that David Carr is not a franchise QB so the Texans do not have one. Most people seem to think that Vince Young and Matt Leinart are franchise QBs (and others say Jay Cutler is as well). The golden rule in his case says they should not pass on either of the franchise signal callers. However almost everyone seems to think that the Texans should take either Mario Williams or Reggie Bush #1 since in most people's minds they are the clearcut best prospects (there are a minority of people who want Young or D'Brickahaw Ferguson instead). So in 2006 the Texans not only broke the rule, most prognosticators commended them for it saying that they made the right decision. One year later the Texans trade two second rounders for whom they hope is a franchise QB.

2, against the theory that most teams subscribe to the golden rule:

Alot of people think that the majority of teams (especially the good ones) in the league subscribe to the "golden rule".

Here's my beef with that. Kyle Boller, Aaron Rodgers, Brady Quinn and Joe Flacco were all taken in the latter half of the first round. Several times in this thread alone I've heard these QBs called "franchise QBs" as prospects. But they were each passed on by at least 15 teams, more than half of which probably did not have franchise QBs of their own.

Kyle Boller is a good example. The Ravens traded up to nab him. It has been argued by someone in this thread that the Ravens saw in him a franchise QB and therefore trading up for him proves that they adhered to the golden rule. However they chose Terrell Suggs at tenth overall, nine picks before Boller. If they truly believed that Boller was a franchise QB and also believed absolutely in the golden rule why did they pass on Boller with their first 1st rounder? If they were truly adhering to the rule they would have taken Boller right away, instead they chose a player they thought more highly of first, then went after the QB they wanted after. In essence prioritizing another player (Suggs) over the aquisition of a franchise QB.

Same reason they didn't take Flacco Top Ten. The GM isn't stupid, and knows value, but trades where he needs to be to get his franchise QB and still don't overpay too much.

[wonderbredd24]

The "Golden Rule" is like Communism... it works until human nature takes over.

Most GMs and Head Coaches have about 3 years to succeed in this business, so they rush quarterbacks.

Owners hear the boos and see the losses and can pressure teams to make hasty decisions with quarterbacks.

Plus, the quarterbacks and their agents want to get them on the field, becuase the player likely signed a deal with performance incentives and the agent is worried they are losing endorsement deals while the kid is on the bench.

[Solomon]

Same reason they didn't take Flacco Top Ten. The GM isn't stupid, and knows value, but trades where he needs to be to get his franchise QB and still don't overpay too much.

But that isn't the golden rule right? The golden rule is if you don't already have a franchise QB and one is available when you draft, you take him even.

Not if you don't already have a franchise QB and one is available when you draft you take somebody else then try to trade for the QB.

What I'm trying to say is that the golden rule isn't a hard, steadfast rule. There is manuverability and leeway involved.

[Babylon]

The "Golden Rule" is like Communism... it works until human nature takes over.

Most GMs and Head Coaches have about 3 years to succeed in this business, so they rush quarterbacks.

Owners hear the boos and see the losses and can pressure teams to make hasty decisions with quarterbacks.

Plus, the quarterbacks and their agents want to get them on the field, becuase the player likely signed a deal with performance incentives and the agent is worried they are losing endorsement deals while the kid is on the bench.


I think in this day and age you can bring a QB in and play him pretty early. When you're a Detroit, or an Atlanta last year, your QB situation is so bad that the guy you bring in is probably better than anything you have. Surround him with a running game and limit his throws and i think we've seen these guys can be successful.

[Shane P. Hallam]

But that isn't the golden rule right? The golden rule is if you don't already have a franchise QB and one is available when you draft, you take him even.

Not if you don't already have a franchise QB and one is available when you draft you take somebody else then try to trade for the QB.

What I'm trying to say is that the golden rule isn't a hard, steadfast rule. There is manuverability and leeway involved.

The golden rule is if you don't have a franchise QB, you get one. Baltimore got one in Boller and Flacco. They followed it.

[Solomon]

The golden rule is if you don't have a franchise QB, you get one. Baltimore got one in Boller and Flacco. They followed it.

If Detroit was high enough on Josh Freeman, Nate Davis or Rhett Bomar and they took lets say Eugene Monroe #1 overall and then Freeman or Davis or Bomar with the second or third selections that means they are following the golden rule?

So then why do people say that the Dolphins did not follow the golden rule when they passed on Brady Quinn for Ted Ginn? They nabbed John Beck who they thought was a franchise QB early in round 2.

Now I'm actually confused about the "golden rule".

[bored of education]

Their are cases in which teams thought a Beck type QB was a franchise singal caller and knew they could wait.

[giantsfan]

If Detroit was high enough on Josh Freeman, Nate Davis or Rhett Bomar and they took lets say Eugene Monroe #1 overall and then Freeman or Davis or Bomar with the second or third selections that means they are following the golden rule?

So then why do people say that the Dolphins did not follow the golden rule when they passed on Brady Quinn for Ted Ginn? They nabbed John Beck who they thought was a franchise QB early in round 2.

Now I'm actually confused about the "golden rule".

That example is awkward because most people didn't consider Beck a "franchise QB" and thought Quinn/Russell were the only franchise QBs, obviously Miami disagreed so they waited for beck in round 2. But most people felt that Miami was disregarding the golden rule by passing on who they thought was the only franchise QB remaining and not making a move for him when he started sliding.

[Shane P. Hallam]

If Detroit was high enough on Josh Freeman, Nate Davis or Rhett Bomar and they took lets say Eugene Monroe #1 overall and then Freeman or Davis or Bomar with the second or third selections that means they are following the golden rule?

So then why do people say that the Dolphins did not follow the golden rule when they passed on Brady Quinn for Ted Ginn? They nabbed John Beck who they thought was a franchise QB early in round 2.

Now I'm actually confused about the "golden rule".

It's a big difference between trading up for a guy to get back into the first round, getting one of the top QBs in the draft, and drafting Beck in the 2nd, lol.

[Solomon]

It's a big difference between trading up for a guy to get back into the first round, getting one of the top QBs in the draft, and drafting Beck in the 2nd, lol.

Alright, I see what you mean. It just seems like there is so much subjectivity when evaluating QBs. And assigning that franchise signal caller tag to somebody.

I guess it is quite possible that most teams do adhere to the "golden rule" but they passed on players like Quinn and Rodgers because in their opinion they weren't franchise QBs.