The Cardinals are apparently interested in Baker Mayfield

[Stout]

That is not a book sir. I think it's hilarious how people no longer have a reading gene in their head and can only process a few sentences at best... "Yes Bob, I will take Dumb Down Society for $100"

Or, those who enjoy to read also get piercing headaches when trying to parse giant blocks of single-spaced text. "Yes, Bob, I'll reduce your hyperbole for $200, please."

 

[POISON]

I like nuances, and I think they makes arguments and discussions better. I don’t think opinions are black and white very often. I don’t ever write anything in affection, so I often has different perspectives in my opinions.

That's cool, carry on.

 

[WisconsinCard]

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.

I think that the bolded part is very important. I just wanted to make mention that developing a system and the trying to add a QB to it is a recipe for disaster, you're either trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or you are limiting your choices of square pegs. With all that being said I am not a fan of "giving up the farm" for an unproven player, but it does make sense to have your QB in place and to build around his strengths.

 

[Gandhi]

I think that the bolded part is very important. I just wanted to make mention that developing a system and the trying to add a QB to it is a recipe for disaster, you're either trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or you are limiting your choices of square pegs. With all that being said I am not a fan of "giving up the farm" for an unproven player, but it does make sense to have your QB in place and to build around his strengths.

I think you are very right, and that is where the approach from offensive coordinators and head coaches has changed the last seven or eight years. The offensive coaches will now tailor their playcalling to suit the young quarterback until he hopefully becomes good enough to perform more complicated systems and playcalls. As you write, trying to force a young quarterback to fit in any system is a recipe for disaster.

I think the posters that is adamant in not wanting to trade up fails to recognize this. I don’t want to attack their stance. I just think it’s an important part of the equation.