You are taking a very raw college QB, paying him millions, and expecting him to contribute in an offseason where he may not be able to start studying a playbook until July, and your coaches job is on the line. What part of the Cardinals situation supports drafting a QB with a pick before the 4th round? Lest I remind you of the last time we drafted a QB, and then fired the head coach only to replace him with someone who didn't love the highly drafted QB on the roster.
I, for one, don't expect any draft pick to contribute greatly in his first year, and see the #5 pick as, hopefully, a productive investment in the team's long term future.
What happened in Cardinal land in the past is largely irrelevant to the present and future.
An "arms race" was launched in the NFC West with the drafting of Bradford, and it's likely that a new regime in SF will be looking for a QBOF in this draft, and it's not inconceivable that Seattle could dip into the QB pool too.
There are four QB's in this year's draft who have Scout Inc ratings higher than Josh Freeman in his draft year. (Gabbert, Locker, Newton, Mallett).
I'll leave it to the pre-draft period of assessment to see whether these general ratings are maintained. If they do, I'm in favour of a QB at #5, as the distinction between picking a QB at #5, #7, #9, #11, etc. is distinction largely without difference beyond the monetary.
At this point we are picking and paying #5 money, no matter what. A slight premium for a QB is hardly a reason to back away from the choice, if the team's evaluation is that QB (A, B, C, B) is an elite prospect.
Lest I remind you: Eight of the twelve QB's in this year's playoffs were first round picks, and all four going into Championship weekend were selected in the first round.
