Damn Eagles Destroying Steelers

[Sharkinva]

Not really.. You are going back 20 years there. Not just Wentz as a top 5 pick QB, but Peyton, Eli, Luck, Newton, Palmer, Rivers, McNabb...

I think it's closer to 1 Jamarcus, 1 Stafford, 1 Cam. Of course in the 3rd round it's 1 Wilson, a few Schaubs, and 45 Mallett/Whitehursts or worse.. So while your cost is MUCH higher in the first, your ability to get a franchise QB is much higher as well... as you can see, 50 years of taking a pick in the 3rd every single year MIGHT get you a top franchise QB.


And I do believe superstar QB's have a HUGE impact on great teams. Look at the 10 winningest teams of the past 15 years.

NE (Brady)
Indy (Manning/Luck)
Pitt (Big Ben)
GB (Rodgers/Favre)
Den (mostly there from the last 4 years, about .500 before that... Manning)
Phi (mostly McNabb years)
Bal ( defense for sure)
Sea (Hasselbeck/Wilson, other years weren't good when those two weren't good)
NO (Brees)
NYG (Eli)

Kinda interesting how you put up the who's who of elite QB's over the past 15 years and you have the who's who of great QB's that were there. About the only great QB name I see missing there is Rivers... And SD is 11th in win% in that time.

Look at the post-season... Out of the 12 teams, it's usually 10 of the top 12-15 QB's, and a couple really good teams (like Houston last year). And those non-QB led playoff teams tend not to stay there year to year.

It's tough to buy that superstar QB's don't make great teams when there aren't any with bad records consistently. I mean, who's the best QB who loses more than he wins? Schaub? Bulger maybe? Stafford? Cutler? Where's the top QB that couldn't win? Sure, some will have bad years win wise. Brees needs a historically bad defense to finish 1 game under .500. But where's the Tony Gonzalez of QB's (didn't win a playoff game in his first 15 years). Where's the Joe Thomas of QB's with a 9 season losing streak?

I think the QB position just by it's nature is so much more important than any other spot. It's why teams take QB's so high, so often. Why they pay them so much. A QB touches the ball on 50% of a teams plays. No one else is remotely close. Most of the teams touchdowns, 3rd down conversions, turnovers, and yards are directly related to that QB and what he does.

Most of the Qbs you have mentioned have solid all around teams. Good Coaching, Good defenses, and enough on offense to make things work. Put any of those guys on the Browns roster.. are they really Super Stars?? Its easy to say these guys MADE their team elite. But reality is, take any of these elite QBs and put them on a team where the defense gives up 35 points a game, and the coaches make bone headed decisions and see how well they do. Its very rare that you get a top two pick QB going to a team like Indy. Brady was a sixth round pick, on a team that had a solid defense and he was replacing some one who at the time was considered one of the better QBs. Rogers took over for Favre, and Green Bay was already a power house.

But if we keep it just inside the Redskins.. we have wasted 7 first round picks over the last 20 or so years chasing the elite QB fantasy.

1 on Schuler
2 on Campbell
1 on Ramsey
3 on Griffin

Thats just the Redskins... this doesnt even take into account guys like Sanchez, Manziel or the long list of first/Second round QBs that have ultimately failed not because they so much lacked talent.. but because they went to shitty teams and were expected to be the savior.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Most of the Qbs you have mentioned have solid all around teams. Good Coaching, Good defenses, and enough on offense to make things work. Put any of those guys on the Browns roster.. are they really Super Stars?? Its easy to say these guys MADE their team elite. But reality is, take any of these elite QBs and put them on a team where the defense gives up 35 points a game, and the coaches make bone headed decisions and see how well they do. Its very rare that you get a top two pick QB going to a team like Indy. Brady was a sixth round pick, on a team that had a solid defense and he was replacing some one who at the time was considered one of the better QBs. Rogers took over for Favre, and Green Bay was already a power house.

But if we keep it just inside the Redskins.. we have wasted 7 first round picks over the last 20 or so years chasing the elite QB fantasy.

1 on Schuler
2 on Campbell
1 on Ramsey
3 on Griffin

Thats just the Redskins... this doesnt even take into account guys like Sanchez, Manziel or the long list of first/Second round QBs that have ultimately failed not because they so much lacked talent.. but because they went to shitty teams and were expected to be the savior.

Not really..

Indy didn't look good pre-Peyton, and certainly didn't look good when he was out with his neck injury
Belichick is 18-18 now in NE without Brady.
Pittsburgh was 6-10 before Ben took over.
GB was horrible for decades before Favre/Rodgers. They had 2 wins in 7 games the one time Rodgers missed meaningful time, they weren't a powerhouse without those two QB's at any point.
Denver had 5 straight non-winning years before Peyton shows up and poof, 12-13 wins every single year.
Philly won 6, 3, and 5 games before McNabb took over as the season starter. 11 that first year with him full time.
Seattle went to SB's and won when Hasselbeck/Wilson were playing well. 6 win year before Hasselbeck, and 4 straight losing years in the in-between years between those two QB's playing at a high level.
NO was a 3 win team with two winning years in 12 years before Brees.
Giants won 10 games over 2 years in the two seasons before Eli took over as their full time season starter.

That's the 9 teams I listed, and their combined records are best teams in the NFL in the 2000's with those QB's, and without.. pretty terrible.


And yes the redskins have failed in the past 20 or so years at drafting QB's. They've been pretty awful at it, which is a big reason they are 28th in that time in won/loss%. The only times they've been good? Brunell's turn back the clock good year. Brad Johnson's good year. RGIII's good year. Cousins good year. The times their QB has had problems, their team has as well. If you miss on your QB position you have to get so many other things right just to be decent.

There's a reason the best coaches/GM's pay those QB's so much money taking away money that they could use to strengthen the rest of the roster. There's a reason those great QB's don't have losing records.

I do think if you put Rodgers on the Browns they will be a contender quickly. They will keep FA's with a QB playing well and turning things around. Their D will look better with a QB not turning the ball over and going 3 and out giving up field position and putting a tired D on the field. They will attract a better coach, and give him time to implement his scheme, they will attract other FA's who want to play with a great QB. The only time Cleveland has won since they've returned was when Derek Anderson played out of his mind.

If you don't believe the QB drives these things than how come some of the best all time players at other positions have awful records, but all the best all-time QB's (as judged by watching them make plays, their peers, their coaches, their opponents) keep winning?

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

While I appreciate you taking up the battle Rock you are in fact arguing with a rock. The facts don't lie but for some reason a few posters here want to ignore them. Since we swung for the fences and missed a few times Shark is convinced you should try to beat the incredibly long odds and try to find the next franchise QB in the 3rd round even though it's happened exactly twice in history. Of course a first round pick is a risk, but not nearly as big of a risk as trying to find that guy in rounds 3-7. It is still amazing to me that they ignore the facts, you have stated it well above but they will ignore your post.

I can throw out another example. The Browns made the playoffs once, hard as that is to imagine. The reason was they caught lightning in a bottle as Derek Anderson had a Pro Bowl season. The following year Anderson turned back into, well, Derek Anderson and the Browns turned back into the Browns.

If the Lions had listened to Shark they would have passed on Calvin Johnson because they missed on earlier first round wide receivers.

 

[Sharkinva]

While I appreciate you taking up the battle Rock you are in fact arguing with a rock. The facts don't lie but again since we swung for the fences and missed a few times Shark is convinced you should try to beat the incredibly long odds and try to find the next franchise QB in the 3rd round even though it's happened exactly twice in history. Of course a first round pick is a risk, but not nearly as big of a risk as trying to find that guy in rounds 3-7. It is still amazing to me that they ignore the facts.

If the Lions had listened to Shark they would have passed on Calvin Johnson becasue they missed on earlier first round wide receivers.

Dude.. you totally miss my point. ( Not surprising) Sure we need to find a QB if Kirk turns out to not be that guy. But trading up, and committing 7 first round picks over the last 20 years has NOT worked. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Trading up for a QB when you have holes all over the roster is DUMB. If we are picking at 15 and a franchise QB is there.. great take him. But if we are sitting at 15 and you want to bend over and give up multiple picks again after it has failed for us numerous times... well sir that is insanity pure and simple.

By the way... what exactly did drafting 19 million WRs in the top five get the Lions??

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Dude.. you totally miss my point. ( Not surprising) Sure we need to find a QB if Kirk turns out to not be that guy. But trading up, and committing 7 first round picks over the last 20 years has NOT worked. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Trading up for a QB when you have holes all over the roster is DUMB. If we are picking at 15 and a franchise QB is there.. great take him. But if we are sitting at 15 and you want to bend over and give up multiple picks again after it has failed for us numerous times... well sir that is insanity pure and simple.

No your point was fans looking for their team to do what it takes to get a franchising changing QB are "looking for instant gratification" (your words). This is simply not true. We understand what a good QB can do for a franchise, there is nothing "quick fix" or "sexy" about that mentality because it has played out to be true over and over again.

And was it "insanity" for the Lions to take another wide receiver with a high pick?

 

[Sharkinva]

No your point was fans looking for their team to do what it takes to get a franchising changing QB are "looking for instant gratification" (your words). This is simply not true. We understand what a good QB can do for a franchise, there is nothing "quick fix" or "sexy" about that mentality because it has played out to be true over and over again.

And was it "insanity" for the Lions to take another wide receiver with a high pick?

Again dude.. you are advocating the possibility of trading multiple picks for a QB. Despite the fact that it has failed for us multiple times. You have basically determined that the only way we get a franchise (read as elite) QB is to pick one high in the first round. Despite the evidence that more often than not top 5 QBs fail, and despite the fact that most teams who have traded up for a QB fail in the pursuit. Forget the fact that the last two QBs we traded up for were at best one year wonders. And again what did the Lions actually gain taking all those WRs i nthe top five of the draft?? Or did I miss the Lions winning a Lombardi??

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Thanks Green fan.

And I am not saying this is every single time. Take Mark Rypien. Not a great QB in my opinion. But god he had the best offensive line ever assembled as far as I am concerned. Had days to pick apart a D, great weapons, strong power run game, great D, great coach, great ST unit with Lohmiller and our boy Mitchell... Looked a lot better than he really was.

There are QBs who's system and talent around them really make them look better. And when you get a great, that team has the consistency to build around them and make them even better. But that great QB gives you so much more flexibility with what you do and you can have more holes than a team without one.



And just because you've done bad with previous GM's/owner at picking QB's doesn't mean give it up. I've already shown, 1 in 50 or so to get a franchise QB with a 3rd or 4th round pick... 1 in 2 or 3 with a top 1st round choice. Yes the Rams got all those picks... And have what to show for it? A solid LB and interior lineman and a bust tackle? And after 4 straight losing seasons gave up a pile of stuff to try and fix their own QB situation? Just because Jeff George doesn't work out doesn't mean you say "well we aren't wasting a #1 pick on Peyton Manning because doing the same thing again is dumb".

Redskins really are an outlier team. You guys draft really well in the first when you do keep it. Champ, Orakpo, Kerrigan, Trent Williams, Samuels, Arrington, Taylor, Rogers.. But how well has that done for you without the QB position solved? Don't mistake poor outcomes with the QB's you do get with the importance of a QB and overall chances of finding him early in the draft.

I totally agree not going after a guy that you don't think can be that guy, reaching for someone. But if your scouts/FO/coaches think that's the guy there is a franchise QB and you don't have one, get him. Just because you are upset giving up first round picks for RGIII, doesn't mean the Bronco's rue the day they gave up all those picks for Elway.

 

[Sharkinva]

Thanks Green fan.

And I am not saying this is every single time. Take Mark Rypien. Not a great QB in my opinion. But god he had the best offensive line ever assembled as far as I am concerned. Had days to pick apart a D, great weapons, strong power run game, great D, great coach, great ST unit with Lohmiller and our boy Mitchell... Looked a lot better than he really was.

There are QBs who's system and talent around them really make them look better. And when you get a great, that team has the consistency to build around them and make them even better. But that great QB gives you so much more flexibility with what you do and you can have more holes than a team without one.



And just because you've done bad with previous GM's/owner at picking QB's doesn't mean give it up. I've already shown, 1 in 50 or so to get a franchise QB with a 3rd or 4th round pick... 1 in 2 or 3 with a top 1st round choice. Yes the Rams got all those picks... And have what to show for it? A solid LB and interior lineman and a bust tackle? And after 4 straight losing seasons gave up a pile of stuff to try and fix their own QB situation? Just because Jeff George doesn't work out doesn't mean you say "well we aren't wasting a #1 pick on Peyton Manning because doing the same thing again is dumb".

Redskins really are an outlier team. You guys draft really well in the first when you do keep it. Champ, Orakpo, Kerrigan, Trent Williams, Samuels, Arrington, Taylor, Rogers.. But how well has that done for you without the QB position solved? Don't mistake poor outcomes with the QB's you do get with the importance of a QB and overall chances of finding him early in the draft.

I totally agree not going after a guy that you don't think can be that guy, reaching for someone. But if your scouts/FO/coaches think that's the guy there is a franchise QB and you don't have one, get him. Just because you are upset giving up first round picks for RGIII, doesn't mean the Bronco's rue the day they gave up all those picks for Elway.

I will say again... look at the list of cant miss first round QBs who missed.

Leaf
Russell
David Carr
Jason Campbel
Schuler
HArrington
Weeden
Quinn
Ponder
Boller
Leftwich
Locker
Losman
Gabbert


Thats 15 names we all know of. Like I said... if there is a guy there where ever we pick, that might be considered a franchise QB... fine take him. But we have been butt raped the last two time we traded up for a QB, and the last four times in general. So the idea of possibly trading up to get a QB in my opinion is dumb at this point.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

Said it once and I will say it again.


For every Carson Wentz... there is an RG3, Jamarcus Russell AND a Ryan Leaf. Philly had a mostly solid roster being run by a college coach that thought he could revolutionize the NFL game. IF no one noticed, the Pats are 3-0 and I seriously think Belicheck could have put Hillary Clinton in a helmet and they would still be 3-0. Super Star Qbs dont create good teams, good teams create Super Star QBs.

Good pts. I believe that this is true in some cases but not in others. The Packers can kiss any playoff chances goodbye if Rodgers goes down - they proved this a few years ago. He proved a few years ago that they totally depend on him. On the flip side - I truly believe that the Cards lineup is stacked, but they will never be champs with Palmer at the helm.

However - you are correct in cases like the Broncos and the Vikings at the current time.

I will say again... look at the list of cant miss first round QBs who missed.

Leaf
Russell
David Carr
Jason Campbel
Schuler
HArrington
Weeden
Quinn
Ponder
Boller
Leftwich
Locker
Losman
Gabbert


Thats 15 names we all know of. Like I said... if there is a guy there where ever we pick, that might be considered a franchise QB... fine take him. But we have been butt raped the last two time we traded up for a QB, and the last four times in general. So the idea of possibly trading up to get a QB in my opinion is dumb at this point.

Campbell, Weeden, Ponder, Boller, Leftwich, Losman (who?) & Locker were "can't miss" QBs?

Cmon - you have some good pts so you should not cloud them by making ridiculous statements to back them up. Most of the others on that list perhaps were considered somewhat elite but even that is debatable (especially Quinn - pure media hype).

BTW - I would certainly not advocate the Redskins trading multiple picks to get a QB in the top 5. However - if they had a say top 8-12 pick I would not take issue with them selecting one. This is an imperfect science & no pick is guaranteed - at any position (there are lots of non-QBs who were busts). Hopefully - this is a non-issue and Cousins gets the team on the rt path. HTTR - good day to be a fan.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Again dude.. you are advocating the possibility of trading multiple picks for a QB. Despite the fact that it has failed for us multiple times. You have basically determined that the only way we get a franchise (read as elite) QB is to pick one high in the first round. Despite the evidence that more often than not top 5 QBs fail, and despite the fact that most teams who have traded up for a QB fail in the pursuit. Forget the fact that the last two QBs we traded up for were at best one year wonders. And again what did the Lions actually gain taking all those WRs i nthe top five of the draft?? Or did I miss the Lions winning a Lombardi??

Where's this evidence. Of the last 23 years of QB's taken in the first 5 picks (30 QB's), 7 have taken their team to the SB, accounting for 12 SB appearances in the past 23 years. 18 of them took their teams to the playoffs once. 10 won over 70 games.

Of the entire 2nd-5th rounds, 150 QB's, 2 have taken their team to a SB. Kaep, Wilson. (Brees took a different team to the SB and would be considered a 1st round QB today). 2 have won 70+ games

1 out of 3 for finding a guy who can win you 70+ games and take you to the playoffs in the top 5.

Vs. 2 out of 150.

It really is that stunning. We don't see it because we get pummelled with Brady and Wilson. And we don't hear the Hakel, Stanzi, Enderle, Crompton, Bomar, etc...

And maybe you want a later first round pick, but I think those are the biggest reaches lately. Manziel, Ponder, Tannehill, Weeden, Manuel, Locker, Gabbert, Freeman, Bridgewater and Tebow are your last 10 picked there. I think the days of a guy like Rodgers being considered at #1, then dropping to the late first round are done. Just my opinion. Now that late 1st is a 2nd round guy you are trying to move back into the first round to get early, and if he works out you get that nice 5th year option.

 

[Sharkinva]

Where's this evidence. Of the last 23 years of QB's taken in the first 5 picks (30 QB's), 7 have taken their team to the SB, accounting for 12 SB appearances in the past 23 years. 18 of them took their teams to the playoffs once. 10 won over 70 games.

Of the entire 2nd-5th rounds, 150 QB's, 2 have taken their team to a SB. Kaep, Wilson. (Brees took a different team to the SB and would be considered a 1st round QB today). 2 have won 70+ games

1 out of 3 for finding a guy who can win you 70+ games and take you to the playoffs in the top 5.

Vs. 2 out of 150.

It really is that stunning. We don't see it because we get pummelled with Brady and Wilson. And we don't hear the Hakel, Stanzi, Enderle, Crompton, Bomar, etc...

And maybe you want a later first round pick, but I think those are the biggest reaches lately. Manziel, Ponder, Tannehill, Weeden, Manuel, Locker, Gabbert, Freeman, Bridgewater and Tebow are your last 10 picked there. I think the days of a guy like Rodgers being considered at #1, then dropping to the late first round are done. Just my opinion. Now that late 1st is a 2nd round guy you are trying to move back into the first round to get early, and if he works out you get that nice 5th year option.

Rock... I think you are missing a bit of the context here. DGF was one of the last great defenders of the RG3 trade. And he is one of the advocates that we should consider trading up for a QB again. I am not against us taking a QB in the first round... if the guy is there and we are in a position to take him. But over the course of the NFL, trading up for a QB has failed much more than it has succeeded. And in Washington it has been a complete and total cluster fuck the last two times we have done it.

I dont think trying to find a good QB is out of the question. But I also dont think its smart to trade multiple picks for a QB based on what we have seen from the NFL, and in particular from what we have seen in DC. If the Skins finish bad enough to draft in the top five, and that QB is there.. sure take him. But I think as an organization they have done more harm than good trading up to try and get that guy and its time to move in a different direction.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Again dude.. you are advocating the possibility of trading multiple picks for a QB. Despite the fact that it has failed for us multiple times. You have basically determined that the only way we get a franchise (read as elite) QB is to pick one high in the first round. Despite the evidence that more often than not top 5 QBs fail, and despite the fact that most teams who have traded up for a QB fail in the pursuit. Forget the fact that the last two QBs we traded up for were at best one year wonders. And again what did the Lions actually gain taking all those WRs i nthe top five of the draft?? Or did I miss the Lions winning a Lombardi??

And again you are scared to make a bold move based on nothing more than it has failed in the past. You have not addressed my Calvin Johnson example despite numerous chances. Again the point was not that they didn't win, it's that they didn't let past misses dictate future moves because they understood that is an absolutely stupid way of thinking. Did our situation scare the Eagles? If you think they would take that trade back today you would be crazy.

And again I have acknowledged that it is a gamble with many misses. And I will always defend the RGIII trade because it was worth the gamble and I understand without a good QB you are spinning your wheels. Know what you have not admitted? Despite me and others providing evidence multiple times you have yet to admit the FACT that there are far more misses outside of the top picks in the draft than there are in the top 10. It's not even close yet you don't want to discuss that.

 

[Sharkinva]

And again you are scared to make a bold move based on nothing more than it has failed in the past. You have not addressed my Calvin Johnson example despite numerous chances. Again the point was not that they didn't win, it's that they didn't let past misses dictate future moves because they understood that is an absolutely stupid way of thinking. Did it scare the Eagles? If you think they would take that trade back today you would be crazy.

And again I have acknowledged that it is a gamble with many hits. No what you have not admitted? Despite me and others providing evidence multiple times you have yet to admit the FACT that there are far more misses outside of the top picks in the draft than there are in the top 10. It's not even close yet you don't want to discuss that.

The Lions drafted numerous top five WR. And what exactly did it get them?? Yes Johnson will go down in history as one of the Best to play the position. But it got the Lions exactly what?? ?Also the Lions didnt trade p to draft Johnson. In fact they rightfully sucked well enough to draft all those WRs.


But yes,, I 100 % agree with you.. if we suck badly enough to draft a QB in the top 2 picks in the draft.. .go for it.. we cant get any worse.

But even the potential of trading up for a QB again at the cost of multiple picks is Forest Gump level special.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Again just to be clear I'm not universally in favor of giving up as much as we did for Robert for another spread offense QB. My argument is it's absolutely stupid to dismiss the entire idea of making a move to get a guy who could change your franchise, instead using a later pick and a prayer, based on nothing more than the fact that it did not work here before.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

And again what did the Lions actually gain taking all those WRs i nthe top five of the draft?? Or did I miss the Lions winning a Lombardi??

THANK YOU. Even when you do hit on those other positions in the first round, there's no telling if getting the best player at the position of his era will win you anything. Heck they got the best WR drafted in the past 15 years and RGIII won as many playoff games as he did. Cleveland got the best LT of this era and nothing to show.

But you aren't saying "well this QB could really work out and we won't get anywhere at all ever in the post-season. Because that doesn't happen. There is no Calvin Johnson of QB's where you miss the risk of drafting a bust and still don't see any team success..

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

The Lions drafted numerous top five WR. And what exactly did it get them?? Yes Johnson will go down in history as one of the Best to play the position. But it got the Lions exactly what?? ?Also the Lions didnt trade p to draft Johnson. In fact they rightfully sucked well enough to draft all those WRs.

.

It got them the best receiver we have seen in 20 years. Had they taken your approach they would have taken some other player who obviously would not have been as good.

 

[Sharkinva]

It got them the best receiver we have seen in 20 years. Had they taken your approach they would have taken some other player who obviously would not have been as good.

I thought the whole point was to put together the best TEAM. IF you draft an all world WR, but your team still sucks.. .what exactly did you gain??

We used 3 firsts and a 2nd on the best performance by a rookie QB in the last 20 years.... and guess what.. we still need a QB according to you and a few others.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Again you continue to miss the point. The point is you can't be afraid to make a move due to previous attempts that failed. That's no way to run a team and no way to go through life.

You have been arguing throughout the thread that the good QBs won because they had good teams around them. You had no response when Rock pointed out that this simply was not the case, with statistical proof, because you are wrong. The QBs played a huge role in making those teams good.

I want a good QB, period. It has proven to be the best way for proven success. Building a great roster with an average QB results in the Kansas City Chiefs and sorry, my bar is higher than that.

 

[Sharkinva]

Again you continue to miss the point. The point is you can't be afraid to make a move due to previous attempts that missed. That's no way to run a team and no way to go through life.

You have been arguing throughout the thread that the good QBs have good teams around them which is why they won. You had no response with the Pats guy pointed out that this simply was not the case, with statistical proof, because you are wrong. The QBs played a huge role in making those teams good.

I want a good QB, period. It has proven to be the best way for proven success. Building a great roster with an average QB results in the Kansas City Chiefs and sorry, my bar is higher than that.

Unless I misses something Rock is not a Pats fan, but an Eagles fan. And thus would have a vested interest in thinking trading multiple picks for a QB was a good idea. I haeve shown you many examples of where chasing the franchise QB has left a team decimated in other areas. If you cant see that as a Redskins fan how the RG3 trade damaged this team, the Campbell deal damaged this team... IM not sure you are even fixable. Trading UP for a player.. especially a QB, does more harm than good in most cases. History bears this out.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I will say again... look at the list of cant miss first round QBs who missed.

Leaf
Russell
David Carr
Jason Campbel
Schuler
HArrington
Weeden
Quinn
Ponder
Boller
Leftwich
Locker
Losman
Gabbert


Thats 15 names we all know of. Like I said... if there is a guy there where ever we pick, that might be considered a franchise QB... fine take him. But we have been butt raped the last two time we traded up for a QB, and the last four times in general. So the idea of possibly trading up to get a QB in my opinion is dumb at this point.

Now you are just being stubborn. Exactly how many more times do you need me to admit that first round QBs is a gamble and most don't pan out. And for the record NOBODY considered any of these guys can't miss.

However I posted the stats. I pointed out that the 3rd round QB list over 20 years resulted in nothing other than Russell. The same article showed how much better QBs in the first half of the first round have been. You once again ignore the facts when they don't fit your argument yet you post this. Come on man....