BPA

[FRO]

When we picked Aaron Donald I did a happy dance for two reasons. First reason being he was an outstanding prospect, the most dominating college DT since Suh. Secondly is due to the Manziel rumors I was sure we were going to screw up and draft him.

The Gurley pick I was happy with because the draft was so weak and there really wasn't anybody else you could justify using the 10th pick on.

When talent is pretty equal, then picking the guy you need more is wise. I think the Rams realized with Donald and Gurley is that the talent wasn't equal.

 

[Alan]

jrry32 putting the cart before the horse:
If we don't have one...sure? Isn't that what Mike Holmgren basically did in Green Bay? Somehow ended up with Favre, Hasselbeck, Brunell, Aaron Brooks, and Ty Detmer.(although, technically, Favre was acquired via trade)

Can't argue with that but don't you have to, you know, find out if you have one first? While I'm totally unimpressed with those picks (except for HassleMe and he played for 4 different teams and what does that tell you?), I do understand your point and I'd do the same thing. But, you're not talking about the same thing we are as I was responding to this "in the 1st or 2nd." There's a big difference between drafting a QB every year or so in the top two rounds and drafting them in the 4th round or lower. Aaron Brooks was drafted in the 4th round, Brunell was drafted in the 5th round, Hasselbeck was drafted in the 6th round and Ty Detmer was drafted in the 9th round. As I've stated many times, IMO, only the top three rounds of a draft produce quality starters on a consistent basis. I have no problem whatsoever with the Rams drafting a QB every year in the lower rounds, OK, every other year, even if we do have a great starting QB.

As I was researching those QBs I noticed something that I hope is a harbinger of things to come. HassleMe was traded by the Pack to the Shehags after his first two years with with them and went on to have a pretty good career. This not only reminded me of Foles, it also pointed out something that should always be kept in the back of your mind (if not the front), you need to give a guy (Mannion) at least a couple of years before you give up on him as both GB and the Falcons can attest to. Here's what that astute judge of NFL talent had to say about the pick of Favre:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Favre
Atlanta coach Jerry Glanville did not approve of the drafting of Favre, saying it would take a plane crash for him to put Favre into the game. Favre's first pass in an NFL regular season game resulted in an interception returned for a touchdown. He only attempted four passes in his career at Atlanta, was intercepted twice, and completed none of them. Favre took one other snap, which resulted in a sack for an eleven-yard loss."

We all know how that turned out.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Well, the Vikings have made the playoffs 3 times in his 7 full seasons with a differnt QB each time so I think his value has paid off quite a bit

And they haven't had a good defense for most of those seasons.

 

[Stel]

If you wait, you get burned. If there's a guy with some quality talent where ever the Rams pick in the 1st or 2nd, you take him. Especially if he drops in your lap.

I agree. It is why I wanted to take Garoppolo with our 2nd round pick in 2014.

 

[Stel]

Using that logic, wouldn't you draft a QB every year?

I don't have a problem drafting a QB every year that one you like falls to you. Don't take one just to be taking one, but if one you like is there, take him. If you end up with more good QBs than you can use, people will give you good value for the extra one.

 

[Alan]

Stel strong on theory:
I don't have a problem drafting a QB every year that one you like falls to you. Don't take one just to be taking one, but if one you like is there, take him. If you end up with more good QBs than you can use, people will give you good value for the extra one.

Sounds OK in theory Stel but let's dig into that. First, we have to set some ground rules. You quoted a reply I made to @Athos when he advocated drafting a QB in the 1st or 2nd rounds which means we're talking about using a 1st or 2nd round pick every year to draft a QB regardless of the quality of the QBs you already have on your roster. So, let's look back at when this has happened in the past (trading a QB on your roster for a 1st or 2nd round pick). The Cheatriots traded Matt Cassel back in 2009 to KC for the 34th pick in the draft so if you had drafted him in the first round you've already suffered from depreciation, having spent more than what you got in return. If you drafted him in the 2nd round you've merely broken even. How did the Cheatriots manage to trade a backup QB for the 34th pick in the draft? That required a season ending injury to their starting QB similar to what happened when Green went down and Warner took over. But in both these examples I already see a problem. They were both #2 QBs and thus got a whole year to showcase their skills. They were also QBs who hadn't just got out of college as Cassel had been a backup QB for 3 years prior to getting his chance to shine and Warner spent 5 years helping coach at his alma mater (Northern Iowa), starring in the Arena League and one year in the NFL Europe league prior to getting his chance to be the #2 QB with the Rams.

You're talking about drafting a QB who will be your #3 QB. The chances of your 3rd string QB getting enough chances to showcase his stuff enough to earn you a 1st or second round draft pick is extremely small and when has that happened before? Never? Once in a blue moon? When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars (Aquarius - 5th Dimension)? Why am I saying this gem that fell to you will start out as your #3 QB? Well, if your strategy is to do this every year then the QBs you already have on your roster are just as "gem like" but with at least one more year of experience. The only way this new QB will get a chance to showcase his skills in such a convincing way as to earn a 1st or 2nd round draft pick in a trade is if both the QBs above him have injuries that knock them out for the year AND early enough that they can show their skills for an extended period.

Plus, you're forgetting what this fishing expedition is costing you. A chance to get a quality starter at a position of need or at least at a position where he'll be penciled in as a primary backup with either pick is far to important to your team to pass on IMO.

I don't see how a drafting strategy that is predicated on losing both your QBs to season ending injuries early in the year can possibly be successful. IMO, the only way this drafting strategy would work is if you're talking about drafting a QB every year in the lower rounds which is just an example of churning the bottom feeders in your roster much like what is done at every other position. I have no problem with that.

Do you see a flaw in my reasoning?

 

[Stel]

High quality starting QBs after the second round are fairly rare, after the third round are almost non-existent. For that reason, I have no problem using a 1st or 2nd on a QB in any year a quality one falls to you. It is highly unlikely that a quality QB you like falls to your draft slot in the first or second round very often. If you are lucky enough for that to happen, you will have such good QB play that everything else will fall into place (and you'll be able to trade your excess of quality QBs for some really good talent at other positions.

 

[Alan]

An interesting drafting strategy @Stel .