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?
-
-
You are completely, 100% right.
-
How much money does your friend have? I'd like to test his theory over a substantial wager.Comment
-
You're right, especially about Detroit and Matthew Stafford, who is on his way to becoming elite.
Originally posted by fenikz** RIP themaninblack. You will be missed. **Comment
-
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.Comment
-
<<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.Comment
-
<<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.Comment
-
Maybe if Andrew Luck was still there when they picked, but that is about it.Comment
-
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...Comment
-
<< 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.Comment
-
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.Originally posted by samvit View Post
Comment
-
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.Originally posted by samvit View PostComment
-
<<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.Comment
-
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.Originally posted by Bulldogs View Post
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.Comment
-
<< 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.Comment
Comment