Quote:
Originally Posted by Exoter175
How is that illogical? He makes a good point.
So many people are over here saying we HAVE to select a QB with our pick, acting like we've tossed every pick in every draft away.
The reality of it is, we've built some pretty damned good teams passing on "sure thing" QB's that didn't turn out to be a "sure thing", and we've also passed on guys who became great talents. But what irks me, is people don't understand that we didn't pass on them because they weren't good enough, we passed on them because at that time, we didn't need them in their raw form, and we had no concrete indication that they'd ever become "what they are".
The thing is, when you have a franchise QB, or you think you do, you generally don't draft QB's inside of the fourth round unless either A. he's a highly talented Project QB, or because you're ready to start grooming his heir.
So far, our Front Office, Coaching Staff, and Owners have thought every year that we had our guy with Cassel, and with Green, and so forth, but the reality is, we've just had re-tread QB's who were good enough to make us forget about setting up a franchise guy for the future, but not good enough to keep us competitive for year after year.
|
It's illogical because it spits in the face of the fact that great QBs make up such a ****ing huge portion of the Super Bowl Winning probability pie.
The reason why 30 years of failure/30 years of no 1st round QB works is because the first round TENDS TO BE where these guys are to be found. At the very least, drafting a QB in the first round shows that the team is very conscious of how important the QB position is.
If there were the same success rate for teams that vacate all of their draft picks and then win the Super Bowl, MAYBE you'd have an argument.
Until we see some data on that, then yes, it absolutely is a false equivalence.