Redskins Sign Grossman

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Well the lottery is high risk high reward. But if you don't have the winning ticket, no worries just play again next week.

But for a QB taken #1 overall. Your organization will invest MILLIONS in him. And IF he does work out, you get your reward.

But history shows there have been a substantially high number of QB's taken that high that did NOT work out. And now the organization is stuck. Owe the player millions of dollars that could be going to a more productive prospect (or 2 or 3!). And you cant trade him because his contract is so huge.

A team can win and survive if you select a DE, DT, OL, RB, any other position on the field #1 and they end up being a bust.

But the QB position, no way. Once you are committed to this kid, thats it, you are in bed with him for the long haul.

I'm not ignoring the reward part. I just don't think it is worth the high of a risk or gamble selecting a QB that high.

Any other position that busts, and it just affects that position. But if you bust on your QB, that affects all 53 players on that roster.

I would take Suh or McCoy (DT) over Bradford/Clausen with the top pick of the draft for just the reasons I stated. if Suh or McCoy (DT) turn out to be a bust, well that is a lot better risk than if my QB is a bust.

If that is true, then to be logically consistent you must argue that the Colts were wrong to draft Manning #1 overall or the Cowboys were wrong to draft Aikman #1 overall.

To recognize the pitfalls of drafting a QB at #1 is wise. To turn it into a "don't draft a QB" dogma is foolish. The situation is more complex than your arguments allow.