El Pac Carnegie wrote:Team's can win without a franchise QB. We have a top notch RB and pretty much nothing else. Putting a shed load of money into a rookie QB who will get hit from pillar to post in his 1st season with to little to no talent around him just seems like a bad idea to me. Strengthen the rest of the team and maybe look at QB's next season when we will be picking in the 1st 5 or 10 again. From the stuff I've read i really want us to take Suh and maybe, if he drops to the 2nd, Clausen. Though i still think we should be looking to strengthen elsewhere.
It's your opinion but i just think it is ridiculous on so many levels.
Teams can win without a franchise/elite player at any position but QB is more important and the correlation is there between succesful teams and first round/early picks at QB.
Your putting a shed load of money in to a QB but didn't you give a shed load of money last year in a LT. Why not give the guy a job to do. You could make the case by your logic that he was the wrong pick as he had nobody worthwhile to protect so get other positions and then a LT when the rest of your team is built.
You passed on QB's to get "safe" defensive picks in the past and investing YET ANOTHER first round pick on the D-line is not worthwhile from a financial standpoint.
You go the way your suggesting and you get just decent enough to be good enough to just move out of range for the top QB's and your mediocre forever. No QB this year because you could get Locker next year? What if you don't? There is going to come a point when you need a QB and if you think Bradford/Clausen have "it" then you have to take one of them this year and even potentially sit them for a year and learn the ropes.
Even if it is not the most pressing need (although i think QB is for you) you have to take one if you think they are going to be great. Take us and Rodgers for example. We didn't need a QB but we thought he had it so we pulled the trigger and it's paid dividends down the road.
El Pac Carnegie wrote:BTW whats the deal with Clausen in mock drafts. I've seen him go in the top 5 in some and not even go in the 1st in others!
He's just divisive. He played for Notre Damme who are vastly hated by everybody. If he played for USC (for example) he'd be without doubt rated the best. He is far better than Bradford and has no injury concerns so i don't know really. I think he should be who you guys select.