what about Rex Grossman? did he play above average during the super bowl run? the defense carried that team to the super bowl, and contained Manning pretty well, but the offense gave too many turnovers.
Speaking of alternatives, there are a lot more QBs near Luck (top 10ish) than there are defensive players (of any position) to Watt (clear #1). You could say Cam Newton, Wilson,Kaep or Matt Ryan are in the 10-15 range, and they're not much worse than Luck. QB ratings in the 90s for all of them. So qbs near Lucks caliber are much more available than someone like Watt. Rivers, Manning and Rodgers are the clear top 3 QBs this year. It's not at all clear Luck will ever be as good as them, which is the other risk in this trade. You already know Watt is #1.
QB's existing and being available are different things. I'd agree with you if it were so easy to find a top-tier franchise QB, but it's really not - because outside of very fluky circumstances (Brees, Manning), they almost never change teams during their primes. Teams waste decades in some cases cycling through QBs looking for a franchise guy. And being clear cut #1 doesn't mean much if the position is not as important. For example, Sebastian Janikowski (in his prime) was easily the greatest kicker of all time and far and away the best in the NFL. Still wouldn't make sense to trade the #10 QB for him. DE is obviously far more important than kicker, but it's still a huge step below QB. That said, if you really believe Luck is just a top 10ish QB, I can see why this question would be a little more up in the air. I think most people view him as the best young QB in the game, and the most likely player out there to be the best QB in the NFL over the next decade or so. I believe he did more in his first two years than just about any QB in history, especially given the lack of O-Line and running game. And this year, despite still having neither of those, he's statistically at the top of many categories. If you had to pick a QB to have over the next decade, who would you put above him?
Watt is the best and most dominant player in the NFL and is on pace to be a first ballot Hall of Famer and one of the greatest defensive players (possibly the greatest) in NFL history if he keeps playing like he has. However, the quarterback position is by far the most single important position on the field. Luck is already very good and has an exceptional skill set that should lead to continued improvement. Ultimately I would deal Watt straight up for Luck. Regardless both Luck and Watt both actually suit up and play and contribute unlike some players.
It is tough to say who is the best young QB. I think it's clearly between Luck and Wilson. But Cam Newton and Kaepernick are very young, have all the tools, and have put up excellent stats. Also, Aaron Rodgers still has a lot of years left. I might just take him in this hypothetical. His 15-1 TD-Int ratio is sick.
Yes Rodgers is killin it... He's been on fire. But I would probably take Luck or Cam over him. Rodgers isn't throwing to scrubs.
Wasn't speaking on Grossman, so he's irrelevant. The fact Sanchez played much better than what the poster claimed. You don't have to stretch that statement into "he carried the Jets". Best believe though, if Mark had played as poorly as the poster claimed, NY doesn't advance to those Conference Championship games. Three of their 4 victories those playoffs were within 1 score.
But isn't that what you advocate? Keep drafting QB's till you find the "one"? I agree that teams spin their wheels for decades drafting one first round QB only to have them fail and they move on to the next first round QB failure (look at the Jags, Titans, Raiders, Vikings, Browns, Jets)... on the flip side, if these teams weren't just drafting a QB just to draft one, they may not be wasting all these non-competitive years and along the way they actually build a competitive team with that early round talent... and they then find a QB that suits them when one becomes available (see the Cardinals). If a team isn't sold on a QB, and they have other pressing needs elsewhere, I will never fault them for drafting the best player available (even if its not a QB). Doesn't mean its not the most important position... just that there are far more reaches (and eventual failures) at the QB position than any other position, which will set your team back even more. The bust factor for QB exceeds other more projectable positions. There ARE more QB's available than there are Watts or Clowneys.
I think the Cards happening onto Palmer was just as distinct a case as Hawks finding Wilson in the 3rd. For every Palmer and Hasselbeck at SEA you'll get Fitzpatrick, J.McCown, and Hasselbeck at TEN. The next round of QB rehashes don't look as promising either but I guess that's the point when it comes to QB gurus, which BOB hasn't proven to be yet.
Below are a couple of articles that don't necessarily agree with that statement.. http://thesidelineview.com/columns/draft/defensive-end-vs-quarterback-bust-battle-part-1 http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftquarterbackriskmyth.php
They're all "distinct" cases... they require the perfect timing of a QB with talent actually becoming available, and a coaching staff that can accommodate them... these guys also happen to land on teams that are relatively "complete" in all other aspects, with a QB being the final piece. Same thing can happen with drafted QB's as well... need the right combination of weapons as well as a coaching staff conducive to QB development for that player to blossom. There are several examples of first round QB's that get failed by the team just as much as they fail the team. And nobody expects Fitzpatrick to be another Palmer, or for BOB's track record to be proven or disproven by Fitzpatrick's performance.
What those articles do not explain or discuss is the setback that the entire team suffers from a QB bust tends to outweigh that of a DE bust (most coaching and GM regimes do not survive the QB bust, and teams usually "start over"). Teams don't build entire defensive systems around their DE... and can usually withstand that if the system they're in is sound. Additionally, a lot of that data showed most of those defensive "bust" players were not within the last 10 years... where a lot more QB's are being taken in the early rounds and most predictably not succeeding (and, just as there was a course correction with the defensive players taken early, there likely has or will be one with the QB's).
With the rookie wage scale that is no longer an excuse. Just the same the quarterback position may not be the most potential bust position as you stated... And since it's the most important position, it may be worth the risk. A bust is a bust. What difference does the position make... And if a team's defense was good enough to withstand a bust defensive end _ they probably should have been looking at a different position anyway.
Its not just the money... its having to wait almost 3 years before you can "give up" on a young QB because of the difficulty of learning the position. So after 3-4 years, if the QB is just not good (and by reflection, the team isn't good)... you can pretty much guarantee that the coaching staff is gone, the GM is likely gone, and the franchise is starting over. Far more of a "bust" than simply the player not doing well. See above explanation. Teams can withstand/survive a defensive player busting... usually do not survive/withstand a QB busting.
Meh... Buffalo has benched EJ Manual already. These coaches and GM's just have to learn when to cut the card. But what you're saying can be said for any position. How long did it take for the Texans to become a good team when Kubiak drafted Mario #1...??? And sometimes it takes a draft pick a couple of years before they start paying major dividends anyway regardless of their position. Sometimes it's not the draft pick that's a bust it could be the coaches and or GM's.. Too many variables to say which is the right or wrong way.
You think they're done with him? More importantly, do you really think they'll use another 1st round pick on a QB while he's there, and while they just spent decent money on Kyle Orton? Answer is likely no to both... and the continued failure at that position via the draft will likely lead to a regime change there before the next QB is eventually picked. Lets just ignore the fact that the hiring of Kubiak, and the entire Rick Smith regime, was a result of the Texans whiffing on a QB with their first ever pick... set them back to WORSE than expansion franchise state... and the example of Mario is perfect if you actually consider him as a border-line bust for the Texans (but one that didn't prevent the team from building something).
I don't know dude... Your asking me about Buffalo's future plans and I don't work for Cleo... But it's obvious they brought in Orton because they didn't trust EJ... And after watching him against Houston _ I don't blame them. That dude couldn't hit the ocean on a post route. I'm just pointing out that they didn't stand still with what they had (as you make it seem teams have to do). And as of now it doesn't appear their organization is going down in flames. Don't stop there... Let's just ignore the fact that McNair hired a GM who couldn't do anything without Joe Gibbs holding his hand. Nope... Mario was not a bust. But the team had about as much success with him as they did with Carr. And that's why teams shouldn't be scared to take a quarterback if they think he's worth it regardless of the round they take him in.
