It’s possible, though not likely, but I don’t understand why on one hand you are arguing with the future in mind, and on the other hand you want to build a good team and then insert a quarterback even though there is multiple evidence that the approach only last for a few years until the quarterbacks gets his first contract extension. That will take up a lot of the available salary cap, and thus make it very difficult to field a good team around him for an extended period of time. The Giants has experienced that. The Seahawks has experienced that. The Ravens has experienced that. The Saints has experienced that. The Lions has experienced that. Sure, it can be done, but it requires that the team drafts really well.
And how many teams have gone all-in and won the Super Bowl after a big trade up? Maybe we count the Eagles here, but there isn't another one to show me that your model works. The truth is, not every rookie comes in and sets the world on fire, and thinking that they will is shortsighted to me. It takes a QB 3 years to really hit his stride, and by that point, you're already on the cusp of extension anyways.
Staying with that topic, I don’t think you are answering some of my questions. I think some of your points are contradicting, and I kind of get the feeling that you know it?
You are saying you would trust the Cardinals to draft well in the top five or ten, yet you don’t want them to draft in the top five or ten. Why?
The Cardinals has gone nowhere outside of two seasons the last nine or ten years, and you have stated that you expect them to be among the worst teams this season, yet you want them to continue to follow the same path that has yielded those results instead of trying to change course and fulfill the ambitions. Why?
You believe it will take time for a young quarterback to do much of anything with the Cardinals, yet you want to wait on addressing the position in the draft and thus postponing the process with minimal success as your projected result. Why?
You want to keep future first round draft picks, yet you know that the odds of finding difference makers in the later rounds are far better. Why?
Going further back, you keep saying that you don’t want to risk the future, yet you wanted them to sign Kirk Cousins to a monstrous contract, knowing full well that it would minimize the changes of building a great team around him, yet you don’t want them to try to build a great team around another expensive and potentially very good quarterback. Why?
Of course, wanting to trade up in the first round because the Cardinals can't seem to use their first round picks well is also contradiciting, so this is not an attack on you.
I'll try to answer each one here.
On trusting the Cardinals in the top five or ten:
I trust them to make a good pick even if we trade up, it's just that trading up this year limits our future. There's a huge difference between a "very good" Baker Mayfield and missing an opportunity to take six more players, than there is drafting in the top ten and additionally keeping picks to take six more players. With Mayfield you get one guy, and the rest of your holes go empty. With the other approach, you're probably getting at least 2-3 "very good" players, and a couple of acceptable players. Hopefully at least one elite player in that group. I am admittedly terrified that we go up and get the "wrong guy," and are staring down another team picking an all-time prospect that we could have added to the team while we're forcing our rookie QB to play and throw to Tyrell Williams or something.
On the Cardinals going nowhere:
There's tons of reasons here, but not reaching for a QB hasn't been one. Carson provided us with many years of top tier play, and we still couldn't do anything with it. Reaching for a rookie that will probably struggle, like rookies do, isn't going to change that. It's not the "same path" at all in our current state, it's a completely new path with a new coach, drastically different scheme, and the last year of Larry Fitzgerald.
On the young QB:
I don't mind if we address the position at #15, or late in the top 10, or in the second round. I'd hope we do. I don't want to sell the farm and the future to make sure the rookie QB has no weapons around him - thus not being able to perform, losing his confidence, and getting labeled a bust and shipped out of town. Sending these many assets for a single player that has never taken a snap in the NFL is a surefire way for him to have all of the expectations in the world on his shoulders, and quickly draw the ire of the fanbase if he starts to play poorly for a stretch.
Odds of difference makers in later rounds:
This is tacitly untrue (that later round players are the true difference makers). I even shared the numbers in another thread. I can't find them to dig them up, but it shows that a higher percentage of Pro Bowlers are selected in the top three rounds. I know that's not a perfect number to measure as "success," but the numbers also correlate when you pull up percentage of rounds that produce starting players. It is foolish to think that every late round pick is Antonio Brown - in more likelihood, they're JJ Nelson. You're mostly drafting guys with significant issues - backups, depth, etc. Occasionally you hit a diamond in the rough. But that's not a way to build a team of productive, starting-quality players, especially when you need to force them into action immediately.
On Kirk Cousins, his contract, and the future:
I'm a firm believer that Kirk Cousins is a difference maker. I am also a firm believer that he has already shown he can play in this league, whereas none of the rookie QBs have that to be said. I believe that adding Kirk Cousins would have changed us from a 4 win team in 2018, to firmly in the playoff conversation, because he would hit the ground running. Cousins' contract may have created a barrier to adding premiere free agents next year and beyond, but we could look to draft assets to either draft great players to put around Kirk, creating consistency for years to come, or take a page from the Rams' playbook and trade picks for players.
You know just as well as I do that a lot of rookies does not pan out, and thus make the end result the exact same as veterans possible calling it a day after getting a big contract. The average career for a NFL player last a little more than three years. This is not a valid argument.
Yep, but I also know that truly elite players rarely come available in free agency, and when they do, you're paying them $20 million a year. There's too many Ndumakong Suhs and Javon Walkers out there.
That’s obvious. It’s also obvious that a good enough quarterback makes everyone around him better. The Packers are arguable a very good team with Aaron Rodgers. I would argue that the Patriots is at most an average team without Tom Brady. I doubt the Saints’ fans dare to think about their team without Drew Brees. The same goes for the Chargers’ fans without Philip Rivers, the Steelers’ fans without Roethlisberger and so on.
Yet, none of those teams traded up for their QB. They all got them by being patient and being in the right place at the right time. One got very lucky in free agency. If all of these teams had made "bold moves" to acquire their franchise players, I'd agree with you.
That’s very fair. That is the best argument you have presented, in my opinion. Trading up just for the sake of doing it with be insane and should lead to the immediate firing of almost the entire front office. This argument would explain everything to me, but then there is not reason to make all the other points as they are, as I see it, just a way of defending your stance.
That argument is also exactly why it’s unfair that you often call the opposite point of view desperation. It’s just a matter of a different view on the available quarterback prospects.
It's been my point for this entire draft process. Not only do the past 20 years show trading up to be a complete statistical failure, they show drafting the guy who isn't the first or second QB off the board to be a failure as well. Combine the two and it's disastrous.
