PDA

View Full Version : Teams That Would Draft a QB in Round 1


samvit
02-16-2012, 06:59 PM
Hi folks. I came here in part to help to settle an argument with a friend. He says the following teams would consider drafting a QB in the first round of the 2012 NFL Draft: Atlanta, Detroit, and Pittsburgh. I say that no competent GM would do that since all three teams have good, young QB's who have many prime years left. While he agrees that each team has a good QB, he pointed out that that their backup QB's are not very good, so by drafting a QB they could improve in that area. I say it's crazy to waste a first round pick on a QB only to improve your backup position when are there are far more critical needs on your starting roster, and if a team wants a better backup QB, you do so via free agency or in rounds 3 or later in the draft. I also pointed out that I could not remember an instance where a team had a QB as good as Roethlisberger with as many prime years left in his career (6-10) and then went out and drafted another QB in the first round. The closest I could get to that was Denver drafting Tommy Maddox in the first round when Elway was 32. Btw, he also said it was a possibility that the Giants would consider drafting a QB in the first round, which I again disagreed with based on the Roethlisberger example. What do you think?

SuperPacker
02-16-2012, 07:01 PM
You are completely, 100% right.

JHL6719
02-16-2012, 07:11 PM
How much money does your friend have? I'd like to test his theory over a substantial wager.

vidae
02-16-2012, 07:18 PM
You're right, especially about Detroit and Matthew Stafford, who is on his way to becoming elite.

Master Exploder
02-16-2012, 07:24 PM
Atlanta does not have a 1st round pick this year, so you won't be seeing them draft a QB in the 1st round.

San Diego did draft Eli Manning when they had Drew Brees, but to be fair, Brees wasn't very good at that time.

samvit
02-16-2012, 07:32 PM
<<San Diego did draft Eli Manning when they had Drew Brees, but to be fair, Brees wasn't very good at that time.>>

Right, but they acquired Rivers via the Manning trade to be the starter, not the backup to Brees, since they traded Brees to New Orleans.

samvit
02-16-2012, 08:02 PM
<<San Diego did draft Eli Manning when they had Drew Brees, but to be fair, Brees wasn't very good at that time.>>

<<Right, but they acquired Rivers via the Manning trade to be the starter, not the backup to Brees, since they traded Brees to New Orleans.>>

Oops, I was dead wrong on that. Didnt realize that Rivers and Brees were on the roster together for two years in SD.

Shane P. Hallam
02-16-2012, 08:15 PM
Maybe if Andrew Luck was still there when they picked, but that is about it.

PossibleCabbage
02-16-2012, 09:05 PM
I think every team would draft Andrew Luck if somehow they were picking and he was available. Not every team would still own his rights by the end of draft day, though.

I mean, the Packers would take Luck if he were there at #28 somehow, they have need of a good backup...

samvit
02-16-2012, 09:17 PM
<< I mean, the Packers would take Luck if he were there at #28 somehow, they have need of a good backup...>>

Yeah, they probably would grab him, but then deal him for a king's ransom and fill some holes on defense rather than keeping him as a backup.

Bulldogs
02-16-2012, 09:21 PM
<< I mean, the Packers would take Luck if he were there at #28 somehow, they have need of a good backup...>>

Yeah, they probably would grab him, but then deal him for a king's ransom and fill some holes on defense rather than keeping him as a backup.

Assuming he dropped to #28 in this bizarro world, he would not be worth a king's ransom. If he was another team would have already selected him.

cmarq83
02-16-2012, 09:23 PM
<< I mean, the Packers would take Luck if he were there at #28 somehow, they have need of a good backup...>>

Yeah, they probably would grab him, but then deal him for a king's ransom and fill some holes on defense rather than keeping him as a backup.

If he lasted until 28 he wouldn't have enough perceived value around the league, so in they certainly wouldn't get a king's ransom for him under that scenario.

samvit
02-16-2012, 09:28 PM
<<Assuming he dropped to #28 in this bizarro world, he would not be worth a king's ransom. If he was another team would have already selected him.>>

Well that's very true too....I guess it's silly to even talk about this idea, since it simply would never happen.

PossibleCabbage
02-16-2012, 09:38 PM
Assuming he dropped to #28 in this bizarro world, he would not be worth a king's ransom. If he was another team would have already selected him.

You could still get a king's ransom by sitting on Luck for a couple of years, showing how good he is to the rest of the league, and flipping him for picks.

I mean, isn't this basically the justification for the Pats taking Mallett last year? Yeah, they didn't do it in the first round, but Luck's a significantly better prospect.

samvit
02-16-2012, 09:45 PM
<< I mean, isn't this basically the justification for the Pats taking Mallett last year? Yeah, they didn't do it in the first round, but Luck's a significantly better prospect.>>

I liked the Mallett selection. The third round is iffy anyway for finding players who will stick, so it seemed like a low risk high upside move. They can try to develop Mallett into a decent QB and say at some point Brady goes down for a games and Mallett shines as his replacement, then shop him to some teams who desperately need a QB and get some picks/players in return. Or, if it's at the point where Brady is close to retirement, hang on to Mallett as his replacement.

keylime_5
02-16-2012, 09:56 PM
None of those teams would draft a QB to replace what they have. Not even Andrew Luck ( who I think is overrated a bit by the media in just how elite of a QB prospect he is, but that's for another thread on another day ). Luck is a guy who you hope turns out as good as Big Ben, Ryan, Stafford, etc....but is not a known commodity. Why start over at a position that you already have a total stud at when you are ready RIGHT NOW to start competing for championships? No offense, but I don't think your friend knows much about how the NFL works.

Now I could see those teams actually drafting a QB in the first round - but they would only draft them in order to trade them immediately for multiple top picks.

samvit
02-16-2012, 10:12 PM
Well I agree. As a general rule of thumb, you only draft a QB in the first round if you expect him to be your starter within four years max. If you already have a QB like Stafford who is 24 and can probably play at a high level for the next ten years, and then bring in another first round QB for what purpose? To be his backup for the next 10 years? Seems crazy to me. Plus that QB would leave for a starting position after his contract was up anyway and you would have to replace him. Drafting a 1st round QB to be your long term backup makes about as much sense or less as drafting a Punter in the first round.

PossibleCabbage
02-16-2012, 10:31 PM
If he lasted until 28 he wouldn't have enough perceived value around the league, so in they certainly wouldn't get a king's ransom for him under that scenario.

Well, just because a team passes on a player doesn't mean they don't have significant interest in him, it just means that when that team was picking there was someone else available when they picked.

I mean in 2007 the Browns were high on Brady Quinn, they were just higher on Joe Thomas. In 2008 the Falcons were high on Sam Baker, they were just higher on Matt Ryan. In 2009 the Packers were high on Clay Matthews, they were just higher on B.J. Raji. In 2010 the Lions were high on Jahvid Best, they were just higher on Ndamukong Suh. Et cetera.