Quote:
Originally Posted by saphojunkie
You might not be wrong to turn down the trade, but you absolutely have to have a more rational explanation than this.
|
Okay. How's this for rational?
It's settling. I don't care how small the distance between the QBs is that Andy Reid perceives. Andy Reid needs to take his preferred QB. The QB he wants the most in this entire draft. If that's Wilson, he needs to take Wilson. If that's Barkley, he needs to take Barkley.
There was a pretty small difference between Andrew Luck and RGIII. Luck was a smidge higher on most boards. Let's say the Colts viewed the QB race last year that way, but the Rams (before they traded away the pick) REALLY wanted Luck, and were going to cut Bradford loose either by trade or something else. Should the Colts have accepted a trade down of one spot if they got that kind of deal from St. Louis?
Notice that I'm completely ignoring the issue of value and getting bang for one's draft buck. This is all about the bullshit of accepting 2nd best at the most important position for something like DRAFT PICKS. Every team gets 7 draft picks every year. A team is NEVER going to run out of draft picks. Guess what you can run out of though? Good QBs.
It's the exact same issue as the people who now say, "I'd trade entire DRAFTS if we could have a sure-fire franchise QB in KC for 10 years". Here we've been given our pick of the best QB in an entire draft. He has the potential to be that 10 year franchise QB. And what do we do? Pass on him for an extra CB and DL? Neither of which are guaranteed to be good players.
Never accept 2nd best when it comes to QBs for ****ing draft picks. NEVER EVER.