[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.

Almost every transaction in football a gamble. That said, busting on a franchise qb may not be that bad because since the QB will make the team lose, the team will have higher draft picks in the subsequent years. They can then use those high draft picks to stock up the roster. Of course, this only applies if the team is just using it's normal 1st rounder and did not trade a bunch of stuff away for the pick.