That’s because you, along with a lot of other people, think badly of a game manager. Tom Brady is a game manager. Alex Smith has taken the Niners to the Super Bowl and the Chiefs to the playoff though he is a game manager. Case Keenum and Nick Foles were game managers that took their teams far in the playoff, including obviously winning it all. You could even argue that Matt Ryan is a game manager, and that Ben Roethlisberger has become a game manager the last couple of years. Being a game manager is not a bad thing. Kirk Cousins is a game manager, and if I remember correctly you wanted the Cardinals to sign him and make him the highest paid player in the NFL. Quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees or Cam Newton who are great at improvising when a play breaks down are extremely rare, and not necessary for success.
Uhhh, Kaepernick played the entire playoffs. Smith didn't take them there. He's gotten teams to the playoffs, but there's a reason he's on his third team. He isn't capable of changing the game.
By far the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on this board though, is
calling Tom Brady a game manager. Game managers are not guys that win multiple MVPs, Super Bowl MVPs, have more rings than any other QB, throw for 500 yards in the Super Bowl, or break touchdown passing records. Brady has elevated the play of players who couldn't do anything else on other rosters because he is absolutely able to completely take over a game and be unstoppable.
Case Keenum had one good year. Nick Foles isn't a game manager, he's just hot and cold. Matt Ryan isn't really a game manager, but he's also not a guy I'd put in the "takes over a game" category. Roethlisberger is also hot and cold these days, but he's not at all a game manager. Kirk Cousins is not at all a game manager.
My point is: You're misdefining "game manager." Ask just about anyone who knows the sport, and they'll tell you that a game manager is a guy whose stats are middling, takes what the defense is giving him, and relies on his team's superior playmakers at running back or on defense to elevate his game for him. Trevor Siemian is a game manager. Not Tom Brady.
I believe that paragraph says it all. Like you wrote, you believe drafting one of the quarterbacks in the top one, top three or top five would be a reach. I can understand that, and I think it is a completely fair opinion. It is, however, far from not wanting to pay up to get a quarterback. By the way, I don’t know if you experienced the Cardinals go through multiple really bad quarterbacks, but if you did, I don’t understand how you can say that patience and believing the Cardinals should just stay put and see if anyone slides to them is the way to go at the moment. Again, they tried that approach last year and failed badly.
I don't think these QBs being drafted in the top 5 is necessarily "reaching." If the Cardinals owned the #4 pick in the draft this year on account of record, and decided to go with Josh Allen because he was all that was left of the top 4? I can live with it. I just don't want to give up years and years of top picks to move up to that space, because it costs way too much for an unknown return. I'd literally rather have traded three number ones for Jimmy Garoppolo than move up to number 1 for a guy that hasn't thrown an NFL pass.
I'm also not saying "wait and see if they slide to 15," I can accept trading up to #8 or something if the guy we like is there. Just don't move up to the top 5. It's not worth it.
Kam Chancellor as a fifth round pick is why. Robert Mathis as a fifth round pick is why. Jared Allen as a fourth round pick is why. Josh Norman as a fifth round pick is why. Antonio Brown as a sixth round pick is why. Richard Sherman is a fifth round pick is why. Tyrann Mathieu before his injuries was a stud. John Brown before his injuries was a stud. Markus Golden is a stud. David Johnson is a stud. Budda Baker has the making of a stud. Do you really want me to go on? I guess it depends on the definition of selling the farm, and personally, I would much rather give up one pick in different years than multiple picks the same year. At least saying that major talent can’t be found in the later rounds are simply wrong. If you want to use history as arguments in this debate, you have to acknowledge the history when it doesn't suit your points as well.
Here are the numbers for Pro Bowlers by round from 2010 to 2015.
1 - 48.5%
2 - 14.0%
3 - 8.8%
4 - 7.0%
5 - 5.3%
6 - 3.5%
7 - 1.2%
Undrafted - 10.5%
See the issue here? By trading away first round picks, you're missing out on big difference makers. The kinds of guys who are the reasons you win games, not just filler because you can't find better. You can cherry pick the great examples all you want, but data doesn't lie.
No, the ifs are valid to back up your argument but are not valid in a discussion about what to do right now. You cannot predict what will happen in the future and claiming otherwise is only a way of being scared of shooting for greatness, in my opinion.
By the way, the idea to build a team is great, but if it was as easy as writing it on a message board every team in the league would do it. If I could choose, I would not settle for likely mediocracy for years.
No, you can't predict what will happen in the future, but you can mitigate your risk and give yourself the best overall chance to win. Most of the winning teams in the league did not wildly burn their assets and move up for a quarterback to "shoot for greatness." They exhibited patience and hit on the right guy at the right time.
Odds are, if you put together a list of top five QBs in the NFL right now, only one of them would be a top 5 overall pick. Top ten? Maybe 3.
Probably not since those guys are getting up there in years, and the draft is obviously for younger players. I would without a doubt make them the highest paid players in the league, though, and three or four years ago I wouldn’t have thought twice of giving up high draft pick to acquire them.
I wasn't asking if you'd trade for
them, but if we traded up for Sam Darnold, and we could guarantee he was going to have a career 91.5 QB rating, throw for 42,548 yards, 279 TDs and 142 INTs, but only had a 50% regular season win percentage, and a 33% playoff win percentage with no Super Bowl appearances by the time he retired, would you want him? (These numbers are the averages of Stafford & Rivers' statistics, so TDs and yardage are a little inflated here on account of Rivers playing 5 more years or so.)
I probably wouldn't. The wins are the key. It's just like why people didn't want Cousins. Great fantasy numbers, but the wins didn't add up.