The Cardinals should use their first round pick on a QB every year until the find one!

[Solar7]

I mean, this is also ignoring QBs who regress, like the aforementioned RG3, Colin Kaepernick, Josh Freeman...

 

[Chopper0080]

But then you persistently have young guys who have no QB experience to learn from and model their game after. There's a reason that many successful QBs sit behind veterans for a long time. You need a guy in the league who has seen it all before. There's a mental part to the game, a preparation part to the game, that most QBs will attribute to learning from a more experienced guy in their career.

A long time? Who, other than Brady and Rodgers. Rivers was one year behind Brees. Palmer sat 1 year.

Carr, nope.
Dak, nope.
Wilson, nope.
Flacco, nope.
Roethlisberger, nope.
Dalton, nope.
Luck, nope.
Alex Smith, nope.
Brees, nope.
Cam, nope.
Wentz, nope.
Mariota and Winston, nope.
Eli, nope.
Stafford, no.
Ryan, nope.


Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Chopper0080]

Or you trust your scouting and pick the best player available.

Doing something like that out of desperation would make this team look like the Colts or Jaguars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Football teams should be desperate for a QB. Rams have traded for a million picks and still suck. Browns traded a shot at Wentz, for a bunch of picks and are desperate for a QB. How is it a bad thing to use premium resources for the most impactful position on your team and in the league?

Is sales, you send your big guns after the big accounts. Same here. And like stocks, you can't lose everything if you have a diverse portfolio.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Chopper0080]

Derek Carr was essentially Blake Bortles his rookie season.

Would you give Carson Wentz a second season? I think you would. Would you bet your job on him. Maybe not. But, that is why you draft Watson, Mahomes, Kizer, Dobbs or Webb this year.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Chopper0080]

Wasn't Andy Dalton brought up in this thread? Matt Stafford? Kirk Cousins? Blake Bortles (maybe reaching here)?

Stafford looked decent year one.
Dalton still isn't good.
Bortles looked his best year 1.

The point is if they don't develop you have option B on the roster and will draft C next year.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Stout]

The problem with this rationale is that you have no veterans on your roster at the position. No vet backups, no veteran leadership, no mentoring, nothing. I mean, I like the audacity of the strategy, but I don't think it's feasible.

 

[Jetstream Green]

I can't think of the last QB who was really good yet stunk it up year 1. They all struggle, but you can tell who can play early.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

And then let's say you luck out and are able to attain two franchise QBs, or rather have one you can gift wrap to other teams has having that potential... then what you spent going after two QBs doubles in return, and finding a QB every draft you can gift wrap for extra picks is advantageous even if you already have a starting QB with some years in front of him

 

[Solar7]

A long time? Who, other than Brady and Rodgers. Rivers was one year behind Brees. Palmer sat 1 year.

Carr, nope.
Dak, nope.
Wilson, nope.
Flacco, nope.
Roethlisberger, nope.
Dalton, nope.
Luck, nope.
Alex Smith, nope.
Brees, nope.
Cam, nope.
Wentz, nope.
Mariota and Winston, nope.
Eli, nope.
Stafford, no.
Ryan, nope.


Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Sorry, I didn't mean "sitting behind" someone necessarily, but I meant having someone in the room that's been there before.

Carr - Trent Edwards
Dak - Tony Romo
Wilson - Matt Flynn
Flacco - Todd Bouman, Troy Smith (Bouman only slightly relevant)
Roethlisberger - Tommy Maddox, Charlie Batch
Dalton - Bruce Gradkowski
Luck - Drew Stanton
Smith - Tim Rattay (no one relevant)


I could go on and on, but most of these guys had someone else in the quarterback room with years of experience to talk them through some things. There's a reason veteran QBs like Stanton stick around. They may not have the most talent in the world, but they serve as another set of eyes.

Stafford looked decent year one.
Dalton still isn't good.
Bortles looked his best year 1.

Stafford threw 20 INTs and 13 TDs, and went 2-8 as a starter. He had one decent game against the ABYSMAL Browns, and hurt himself doing it. In what world is that good?

Andy Dalton is in the top half of QBs in the league. There's at least 10 teams who would give up substantial compensation to get him if he was available.

 

[TJ]

Football teams should be desperate for a QB. Rams have traded for a million picks and still suck. Browns traded a shot at Wentz, for a bunch of picks and are desperate for a QB. How is it a bad thing to use premium resources for the most impactful position on your team and in the league?

Is sales, you send your big guns after the big accounts. Same here. And like stocks, you can't lose everything if you have a diverse portfolio.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I think you're delving into a different subject, which is the notion of collecting as many picks as possible, something that both the Rams and Browns have done with no success.

The reason the Cards haven't had a franchise QB is because it has only drafted one in the first round since 2006, which was a colossal error in scouting, and only one other in the 4th round or sooner since. The problem is it kept trying to patch the position with 3rd day guys, free agents, and bad trades.

Keim hasn't prioritized finding the QBoF, and we'll soon know how much of a priority it is for him this year. Likely will be his biggest test as GM and will make or break him.

Having the mindset of drafting three QBs means you likely have a subpar scouting crew and a crappy GM. If it takes three cracks to find a QB, especially with three first round picks, that GM is probably not qualified to hold the position. It also means that he likely can't scout other positions and will struggle mightily to fill the rest of the 53 man roster. Look at Indy. It has its QBoF, but also boasts one of the worst defenses and worst O-Lines in the NFL. Now, that QBoF might be injury prone because he keeps getting hit unnecessarily. In addition, to make up for neglecting other positions, you're then paying a premium for free agents to fill the holes that could've been done with other first round picks.

A better idea would be to package picks and move up if you have such confidence in a particular QB. Frankly, this isn't the draft to do so, so staying put at 13 might be good enough.

I'm all for finding the right guy, but am not interested in starting that UDFA LT from Cal Poly to make it happen.

 

[kerouac9]

Would you give Carson Wentz a second season? I think you would. Would you bet your job on him. Maybe not. But, that is why you draft Watson, Mahomes, Kizer, Dobbs or Webb this year.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Again, you can't develop more than 1 QB at a time, particularly today, when off-season contact is so prescribed.

I wouldn't have drafted Carson Wentz to begin with. No ones drafting Keizer, Dobbs, or Webb in the first round, either. If you want to draft a QB in the first three rounds every year until you hit on someone, more power to you. People forget that Carolina drafted turdburger Jimmy Clausen in the second 12 months before Cam Newton.

But sinking resources into the same position year after year is how you end up like Indy--they have Luck and nothing around him. You're better off building a perfect team and then dropping a QB into the right situation--that's what happened in Dallas and Seattle and even Pittsburgh with Big Ben.

And Phil Rivers sat his first two seasons with the Chargers.

 

[Sunburn]

You don't have to bench the guy you have after year one. You just keep bringing in talent until someone shines.

Using the example...if EJ doesn't pop year one, you have Derek Carr year 2, and Manuel is the backup. Carr looked promising year 1, but you want to see more. You draft Mannion, but Carr still wins the job. Mannion and Manuel battle for #2 job.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I really like the idea. It's ideas like this that change the game. One question.........say if Manuel wins the job, what happens to your number one pick?

 

[Ohcrap75]

Assuming the Cardinals have enough talent not to be drafting #1 the next few years. Would you rather use this approach or trading 3 first rounders to move up for one QB? I suppose it boils down to if we have more faith in our coaching/system or our scouting? Obviously either plan needs both, but is there a better chance to turn three 4 star prospects into franchise QB or identify the franchise guy and trade up? Very interesting Chopper! I love me some out of the box thinking!

 

[Mr Rogers]

It's like there is no set and easy path that anyone can follow to get a quality QB.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Chopper...why do you think I have been driving the Mahomes train around here?

The Cardinals are a year or two (maybe even this year) away from being absolutely putrid at the most important position in sports. Teams cannot win in todays NFL without good QB play.

We know that Drew Stanton is not the answer as a long term starter. The Cardinals can no longer wait to find the QB of the future. And yes I fully agree, the team needs to find a legitimate QB of the future even if it means using multiple picks.

Mahomes has the highest ceiling so he should be the target. I think if the team misses out round one, Davis Webb should be the next target because he has the look of a future NFL QB.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I don't recall the cards ever drafting two QBs in a single draft, am I remembering incorrectly?

It may not always lead to a superstar but it usually nets you at least a serviceable starter at some point. To my memory the redskins have done so twice:

Shuler & Frerotte

RGIII & Cousins

Ironically it seems the latter picks were superior each time.

 

[JeffGollin]

But with this strategy, you're giving each guy ONE year to prove it or lose it, which isn't fair. Russell Wilson showed some early signs of success, but had the NFL's best defense and a monstrous running game holding him up. Tom Brady didn't immediately turn into "Tom Brady" after taking over for Drew Bledsoe, in fact there was some debate about whether or not Drew or Tom should start that first Super Bowl.

If the Browns had used the #2 pick on Dak Prescott last year, would he have had the best rookie season by a QB of all time, or would he have just been another name in the six quarterbacks they ended up using? By this strategy, you'd be using another top pick on Watson/Trubisky/Mahomes/Kizer and throwing them into the exact same mess to fail just as bad.

Not necessarily - You could create a pipeline which incorporates all four QB positions (Starter, Backup, #3, PS). Each of the four roles would be unique and each QB graded in relation in terms of how well he meets the Job Requirements for each of the four roles.

It's not inconceivable that a rookie could come in, occupy a PS spot in Year 1, the #3 spot in Year 2 and push for the Starting spot in Year 3. This would give each youngster a 2-year window in which to show show what he's got.

Regarding the #2 QB Spot - Does it (should it?) have its own unique Job Description and required skill-set? Stanton is there for a reason. Should there be two separate drafting strategies - one for a future starter/the other for a future #2? (Would we want a Trubisky coming off the bench to relieve Carson Palmer Or would we want someone less athletic but more unflappable (- like a Peterman or Beathard)?

 

[cardsfanmd]

I like RG3 - bet BA and Tom Moore can make him a servicble QB- Still Stanton knows our system and can buy us time for the right pick - he's not top 10 qb but not a bottom 12 qb either - I don't grade any 2017 draft QBs to the top 10 in the NFL - sleeper Chad Kelly has the on field skills - but needs a perfect situation and supportive fan base.

Which brings me to my next point. Don't smoke crack.

 

[Covert Rain]

First you have to prove you can pick them or you could do this for the next 50 seasons and it would be futile. Second, depending on timing and age of your roster there simply will be better opportunity during some years to grab a veteran QB going into free agency.

 

[Chopper0080]

The problem with this rationale is that you have no veterans on your roster at the position. No vet backups, no veteran leadership, no mentoring, nothing. I mean, I like the audacity of the strategy, but I don't think it's feasible.

You develop your vet. Year one you are going to have someone on your roster already, more than likely someone who is established. You could even keep three QB for the first two years, and then you have to make your choices. From then on, you have your vet already on the roster.

 

[Chopper0080]

I think you're delving into a different subject, which is the notion of collecting as many picks as possible, something that both the Rams and Browns have done with no success.

The reason the Cards haven't had a franchise QB is because it has only drafted one in the first round since 2006, which was a colossal error in scouting, and only one other in the 4th round or sooner since. The problem is it kept trying to patch the position with 3rd day guys, free agents, and bad trades.

Keim hasn't prioritized finding the QBoF, and we'll soon know how much of a priority it is for him this year. Likely will be his biggest test as GM and will make or break him.

Having the mindset of drafting three QBs means you likely have a subpar scouting crew and a crappy GM. If it takes three cracks to find a QB, especially with three first round picks, that GM is probably not qualified to hold the position. It also means that he likely can't scout other positions and will struggle mightily to fill the rest of the 53 man roster. Look at Indy. It has its QBoF, but also boasts one of the worst defenses and worst O-Lines in the NFL. Now, that QBoF might be injury prone because he keeps getting hit unnecessarily. In addition, to make up for neglecting other positions, you're then paying a premium for free agents to fill the holes that could've been done with other first round picks.

A better idea would be to package picks and move up if you have such confidence in a particular QB. Frankly, this isn't the draft to do so, so staying put at 13 might be good enough.

I'm all for finding the right guy, but am not interested in starting that UDFA LT from Cal Poly to make it happen.

If QBs and first round draft picks are inherently crap shoots, why put all of your eggs in one basket?

Also, consider that in 2016 Adam Shefter reported that there are more players on NFL roster who were undrafted FAs than were drafted in the first and second rounds combined. It is a myth that you can't construct a quality lineup without first round picks.

Look at the Cardinals
David Johnson - 3rd
Kerwynn Williams - UDFA
Andre Ellington - 6th?
John Brown - 3rd
JJ Nelson
Jaron Brown
Jermaine Gresham - FA
so on and for forth.

Here is who we would not have (and this is all of them)

Larry Fitzgerald
Patrick Peterson
Deone Bucannon
Robert Nkemdiche
DJ Humphries

Those are good players, but none of them franchise difference makers.

 

[outcent13]

The problem with this idea in my opinion is the fact that if you were picking high in the draft you probably have a roster that has more issues than just the QB. By taking this route you further deplete your depth in other areas like OL and WR that would make it even more difficult for those QBs to succeed anyway. That being said I am not against them taking two QBs in the same draft if your roster allows it. For instance if you drafted Kizer(not a fan at all) RD 2 and someone like Cooper Rush(intriguing) in late RD5 or RD 6 you can have them duke it out for QB2 and QB3.(assuming a willingness to cut Stanton)

Maybe if you did a QB in the first three rds a few years in a row I could see it.

 

[Chopper0080]

Again, you can't develop more than 1 QB at a time, particularly today, when off-season contact is so prescribed.

I wouldn't have drafted Carson Wentz to begin with. No ones drafting Keizer, Dobbs, or Webb in the first round, either. If you want to draft a QB in the first three rounds every year until you hit on someone, more power to you. People forget that Carolina drafted turdburger Jimmy Clausen in the second 12 months before Cam Newton.

But sinking resources into the same position year after year is how you end up like Indy--they have Luck and nothing around him. You're better off building a perfect team and then dropping a QB into the right situation--that's what happened in Dallas and Seattle and even Pittsburgh with Big Ben.

And Phil Rivers sat his first two seasons with the Chargers.

Thanks for the correction on Rivers.

I disagree. Indy is a train wreck due to their GM. Our roster and good rosters around the league are filled with players taken outside of the first round. Take away first rounders and the Pats still have Gronk and Brady. Steelers have Leveon Bell and Antonio Brown. Dallas has Dak. Seattle has Wilson, Sherman, KJ Wright, Bobby Wagner and Kam Chancelor. I'm not saying that you do not have to adapt, but you still have many avenues to filling out your roster while still having a yearly chance at hitting the lotto.

And in regards to now being able to develop multiple QBs, I will also push back against that. You don't have to develop multiple guys, but you do have to identify the right guy. You put Watson, Mahomes, and Kizer on a roster, and someone will seperate themselves in year one. What you are then looking for is if that gap closes year 2. The biggest jump for rookies is between year 1 and 2. Russell Wilson beat out FA Matt Flynn in Seattle, and the development took off from there. Rodgers showed enough that Green Bay walked from Brett Favre. Pats ditched pro bowler Drew Bledsoe for Brady, and Brady wasn't stellar early. Talent separates itself quickly in the NFL, and even more so at QB.

 

[Chopper0080]

The problem with this idea in my opinion is the fact that if you were picking high in the draft you probably have a roster that has more issues than just the QB. By taking this route you further deplete your depth in other areas like OL and WR that would make it even more difficult for those QBs to succeed anyway. That being said I am not against them taking two QBs in the same draft if your roster allows it. For instance if you drafted Kizer(not a fan at all) RD 2 and someone like Cooper Rush(intriguing) in late RD5 or RD 6 you can have them duke it out for QB2 and QB3.(assuming a willingness to cut Stanton)

Maybe if you did a QB in the first three rds a few years in a row I could see it.

WR does not matter without a QB. Fitzgerald wasn't leading us to wins between Warner and Palmer.

Our best two offensive linemen are FAs. Move on.

Let's drop this notion that NFL players only come from the first round, because they don't.

In regards to multiple QBs in the same draft, that is a half measure. Why limit yourself more, when you have premium assets than should be used to fill a premium position?

 

[kerouac9]

Thanks for the correction on Rivers.

I disagree. Indy is a train wreck due to their GM. Our roster and good rosters around the league are filled with players taken outside of the first round. Take away first rounders and the Pats still have Gronk and Brady. Steelers have Leveon Bell and Antonio Brown. Dallas has Dak. Seattle has Wilson, Sherman, KJ Wright, Bobby Wagner and Kam Chancelor. I'm not saying that you do not have to adapt, but you still have many avenues to filling out your roster while still having a yearly chance at hitting the lotto.

And in regards to now being able to develop multiple QBs, I will also push back against that. You don't have to develop multiple guys, but you do have to identify the right guy. You put Watson, Mahomes, and Kizer on a roster, and someone will seperate themselves in year one. What you are then looking for is if that gap closes year 2. The biggest jump for rookies is between year 1 and 2. Russell Wilson beat out FA Matt Flynn in Seattle, and the development took off from there. Rodgers showed enough that Green Bay walked from Brett Favre. Pats ditched pro bowler Drew Bledsoe for Brady, and Brady wasn't stellar early. Talent separates itself quickly in the NFL, and even more so at QB.

Seattle lost their first round safety in Earl Thomas and were never the same again.
The Pats are sui generis—it's just as true as when Mitch uses them as a model.
Dak is protected by an offensive line made up of 4 first rounders and a first-round-quality player if a body hadn't surfaced in the bayou before draft day.

What is that stat about UDFA's supposed to mean? Yes, there are only 64 first- and second-round picks every year. There are HUNDREDS of UDFAs, and the churn on them is constant. Of course there are going to be more UDFAs on rosters. What about on Pro Bowl rosters?

Aaron Rodgers showed so much in the three seasons he sat on the bench and practiced that the Packers used a 2nd round pick on Brian Brohm the year Rodgers was handed the starting job (such faith!).

 

[outcent13]

WR does not matter without a QB. Fitzgerald wasn't leading us to wins between Warner and Palmer.

Our best two offensive linemen are FAs. Move on.

Let's drop this notion that NFL players only come from the first round, because they don't.

In regards to multiple QBs in the same draft, that is a half measure. Why limit yourself more, when you have premium assets than should be used to fill a premium position?

If thats the case then why not trade our first round picks for multiple picks in other rounds every year? Using your argument the likelihood of ever getting a good player including a QB in rd one is low so why pigeon hole yourself to drafting one there?

I appreciate your opinion but thats why BPA regardless of position is typically the way to go.