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

[Chopper0080]

And if you can't find one in three years, you are fired. I have been doing a lot of thinking about the QB position and have come to this conclusion. If you don't have a top 10 QB on your roster, you should draft a QB in round 1 every year until you do. It sounds crazy, but here is the rationale.

in 2017, according to overthecap.com, there will be 21 QBs in the NFL who will cost more than 14 mil against the cap. That list includes, Mike Glennon, Andy Dalton, Brock Osweiler, Sam Bradford, Ryan Tannehill, and Kirk Cousins. Not bad QBs, but not top of the line guys either. So, this one player will cost you 14mil + in cap dollars.

Here is the rationale behind my theory.

Marcus Mariota is drafted #2 overall in the 2015 draft. His contract looks roughly like this.
2015 - 4.4mil
2016 - 5.5mil
2017 - 6.6mil
2018 - 7.7mil
2019 - TEAM OPTION

Carson Wentz is drafted #2 overall in the 2016 draft. His contract looks roughly like this.
2016 - 4.8mil
2017 - 6.0mil
2018 - 7.2mil
2019 - 8.4mil
2020 - TEAM OPTION

Let's say Deshaun Watson was drafted #2 overall in the 2017 draft. His contract will look roughly like this.
2017 - 5.2mil
2018 - 6.4mil
2019 - 7.6mil
2020 - 8.8mil
2021 - TEAM OPTION

OK, none of these guys worked out, you draft #2 overall again in 2018...
2018 - 5.6mil
2019 - 6.8mil
2020 - 8.0mil
2021 - 9.2mil

So, if these were all the same team drafting #2 overall for three year straight, and took a QB EVERY YEAR, this would be the rough cap cost of doing so...
2015 - 4.4mil
2016 - 10.3mil
2017 - 17.8mil
2018 - 28.8mil


COMBINED

You could make an argument to draft a QB in round 1 every year until you found the right guy, and it would still be similar to most teams QB positional spending...and you will only ever be keeping three on your roster, so you can always spin one off to another team to add picks.

 

[Bodha]

and be the Browns? Nay.

You forget that those are valuable roster spots youre eating up. We have other needs too every year. Like CB, LB, etc.

I agree that if you want a franchise QB, you have to pay up for one. Meaning 1st round. I hate taking budget QBs in the 5th, hoping they pan out.


However, with that said, I think you should only go after the best QB. If that means trading the farm for an Andrew Luck prospect, then you do it.

The key is to not do it and get an RG3

 

[Solar7]

I feel like this is supposed to be sarcasm based off of some of the other arguments on here recently, so...

But there's just plainly years where there aren't QBs worth the first round investment. Keep in mind when I talk about "worth the investment," I don't necessarily mean a QB worth the 1st round talent level, but where no one in their right minds is going to take one because the talent doesn't match the need at all.

Quarterback is the most important position, but football is a team game, and discarding first round QBs yearly at the expense of elite talents is how your team loses quickly.

 

[THESMEL]

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.

 

[WildBB]

But you'd lose other impact players No way to win long term, you have to build around the draftee. You draft one and commit, you win or don't...then if you have to you begin again.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

As crazy as this sounds I'd do it. In the absence of a good QB the pieces are useless. With the bust rate of draftees high anyway (even first round picks if I'm not mistaken) it's not like a three or four year gamble on just QBs is going to cost you likely more than two solid players (of first round bust rate is 50%). I'm willing to risk two solid position or trench players for a legit 14-year starting QB.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

As crazy as this sounds I'd do it. In the absence of a good QB the pieces are useless. With the bust rate of draftees high anyway (even first round picks if I'm not mistaken) it's not like a three or four year gamble on just QBs is going to cost you likely more than two solid players (of first round bust rate is 50%). I'm willing to risk two solid position or trench players for a legit 14-year starting QB.

This definitely does sound nuts. The problem is though it is hard to tell if they know how to draft them.

 

[Russ Smith]

I think if you commit to start the QB you draft then it has some merit. If you pick a good one you'll get better every year, if you pick a bad one or one not ready, you'll get a higher pick the next year to try again. So 3 years of mistakes you wind up with the first pick in the draft and hope there's a good QB there.

 

[Mr. Boldin]

This thread is exactly why I wouldnt give up the farm for Jimmy G.

 

[Jetstream Green]

As crazy as this sounds I'd do it. In the absence of a good QB the pieces are useless. With the bust rate of draftees high anyway (even first round picks if I'm not mistaken) it's not like a three or four year gamble on just QBs is going to cost you likely more than two solid players (of first round bust rate is 50%). I'm willing to risk two solid position or trench players for a legit 14-year starting QB.

I feel the same way

 

[Chopper0080]

What is more valuable than QB? Without a QB those positions don't matter. The Redskins gave a up bunch of picks, took RGIII, and still made the playoffs two out of the next four years. You have multiple other rounds to fill in your roster spots. Without a QB JJ Watt is irrelevant. Larry Fitzgerald is a non-factor. Joe Thomas is worthless.

If you drafted big strong arm, Arians type QBs at #10 for the past 4 years, your picks would be this...

2013 - EJ Manuel
2014 - Derek Carr
2015 - Sean Mannion
2016 - Paxton Lynch

Now, chances are in 2016 you realize that Carr is special and you don't have to draft QBs in round 1 for a couple years. You also probably wouldn't be drafting #10 this year. To your point, what are you giving up?

2013 - Jonathan Cooper
2014 - Deone Bucannon
2015 - DJ Humphries
2016 - Robert Nkemdiche

Granted those players weren't drafted at #10, but it is a similar hit or miss scenario as the QBs.

The point is that the perception of first round picks in not the reality. There is a certain bust percentage at any position, and often the payout is significantly less as well. Using a first rounder every year until you got one would be relatively cost effective, and would set your franchise up better for the long run.

 

[Chopper0080]

I feel like this is supposed to be sarcasm based off of some of the other arguments on here recently, so...

But there's just plainly years where there aren't QBs worth the first round investment. Keep in mind when I talk about "worth the investment," I don't necessarily mean a QB worth the 1st round talent level, but where no one in their right minds is going to take one because the talent doesn't match the need at all.

Quarterback is the most important position, but football is a team game, and discarding first round QBs yearly at the expense of elite talents is how your team loses quickly.

I am 100% behind this, and the more I think about it, the more I can't believe teams aren't doing this.

The Packers can have a garbage roster and compete for a Super Bowl. The Pats have been relevant for 15 years. The Colts were amazing. The Seahawks can have a garbage offensive line, and win the division. The Texans can have the #1 defense in football WITHOUT JJ Watt, Deandre Hopkins, Lamar Miller, and can barely beat an Oakland team with a unproven QB. Pittsburgh can start Ike Taylor at CB, but it works because they have Ben. All you have to do is hit once, and you are set for 10 years at least.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I am 100% behind this, and the more I think about it, the more I can't believe teams aren't doing this.

The Packers can have a garbage roster and compete for a Super Bowl. The Pats have been relevant for 15 years. The Colts were amazing. The Seahawks can have a garbage offensive line, and win the division. The Texans can have the #1 defense in football WITHOUT JJ Watt, Deandre Hopkins, Lamar Miller, and can barely beat an Oakland team with a unproven QB. Pittsburgh can start Ike Taylor at CB, but it works because they have Ben. All you have to do is hit once, and you are set for 10 years at least.

It's true. I am 100% on board. Your example should include: you're sold on Carr and you can likely get at least a 2nd round pick in exchange for Lynch at the end of his rookie year when you're positive Carr has the goods!

 

[Solar7]

I am 100% behind this, and the more I think about it, the more I can't believe teams aren't doing this.

The Packers can have a garbage roster and compete for a Super Bowl. The Pats have been relevant for 15 years. The Colts were amazing. The Seahawks can have a garbage offensive line, and win the division. The Texans can have the #1 defense in football WITHOUT JJ Watt, Deandre Hopkins, Lamar Miller, and can barely beat an Oakland team with a unproven QB. Pittsburgh can start Ike Taylor at CB, but it works because they have Ben. All you have to do is hit once, and you are set for 10 years at least.

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.

 

[kerouac9]

I am 100% behind this, and the more I think about it, the more I can't believe teams aren't doing this.

The Packers can have a garbage roster and compete for a Super Bowl. The Pats have been relevant for 15 years. The Colts were amazing. The Seahawks can have a garbage offensive line, and win the division. The Texans can have the #1 defense in football WITHOUT JJ Watt, Deandre Hopkins, Lamar Miller, and can barely beat an Oakland team with a unproven QB. Pittsburgh can start Ike Taylor at CB, but it works because they have Ben. All you have to do is hit once, and you are set for 10 years at least.

Counterpoint: The Colts had Andrew Luck last season and no one else and failed to make the playoffs in the worst division in football.

The real talk is that a coaching staff can't develop two young passers at once—Kirk Cousins played like a rookie when he came in because he didn't get any development with RG3 in the saddle. So if you're turning over last year's rookie for this years', you're not even developing a competent backup.

The second thing is that it takes more than one year to develop a solid QB. Andy Dalton had a QBR just over 50 his rookie season. Three years later he's making the playoffs.

 

[JeffGollin]

I like the idea as an overall goal, but not as a result of a rigid formula-based policy.

The goal should be to draft a couple of QB's each year until you get the right one, but the strategy for accomplishing this should not require that we use every 1st round pick on a QB.

I still believe in a BPA approach because (all other things being equal) it improves the net overall talent level of your roster more than any other strategy.

My gut tells me that, if we stick to a BPA approach, we'll coincidently draft our fair share of QB's.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I like the idea as an overall goal, but not as a result of a rigid formula-based policy.

The goal should be to draft a couple of QB's each year until you get the right one, but the strategy for accomplishing this should not require that we use every 1st round pick on a QB.

I still believe in a BPA approach because (all other things being equal) it improves the net overall talent level of your roster more than any other strategy.

My gut tells me that, if we stick to a BPA approach, we'll coincidently draft our fair share of QB's.

Because we've been so coincidentally successful finding our QB in the almost 30 years they've been in the desert? Uh no.

 

[kerouac9]

Derek Carr was essentially Blake Bortles his rookie season.

 

[Cardiac]

Interesting idea Chopper but I agree with K9.

As a side note BA said that if they draft a QB this year the rook would be lucky because he would get reps that most rookie QB's won't get. Palmer doesn't practice on Wednesdays to keep his arm and body rested. The rookie would get those 1st string reps during practice. BA stated they started this towards the end of last season and Palmer immediately started playing better which all of us saw as well.

 

[Chopper0080]

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

 

[Chopper0080]

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

 

[TJ]

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

 

[Solar7]

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

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.

 

[Chopper0080]

Derek Carr was essentially Blake Bortles his rookie season.

Carr showed flashes year 1.
So did Wilson.
Mariota and Winston have both shown enough to keep giving them shots.

This just keeps options and talent flowing in until someone separates from the pack.

Again, you only have to hit once to be set for 10+ years. Consider that because the Redskins had BOTH Cousins and RGIII, they were able to get to the playoffs 2 out of 4 years despite RGIIIs failure.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Solar7]

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

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