The purpose of writing this is to confront those who think a late-round (relatively speaking) QB is a waste of a draft pick, as well as to get a measure on the general opinion regarding drafting a QB in the 4+th round.
Maybe this is just me, and if so, please let me know, but, I have noticed a lot of people throw around statements like "I would never take QB-X before round-Y because he would take Z-years to develop." I think this is just an over-simplification used by too many people, occasionally myself included, to reject prospects that are not among their favorites at the position, upon finding them mock-ed.
Would it be fair for me to suggest that, especially in the case of QB prospects, there be a distinction made between developmental guys, meaning raw or those who weren' t asked to do NFL-type things, and guys that are probably prepared from a coaching/mental standpoint and just need to prove they can still perform against NFL competition?
tldr: does anyone else think successful QBs that might be considered overly-deficient in some area should be talked about differently than the Kaepernick/Osweiler/LeviBrown's of the world, i.e., the Moore/Wilson/Weedon/Cousins's.
I don't know if you can tell, but I think the Bills probably need a new guy under-center to be a SB contender. And, isn't a championship a huge part of the whole fandom thing, btw?
Just ask a Sabres fan how content he would be with making the playoffs and losing in round 1..... or yourselves how that NFL record for 4-straight SB appearances tastes.
(see: tldr ?)
Yes, they are different investments and should be differentiated as such (19 votes)
An 'in-some-way-deficient' QB DOES need extra developmental time (13 votes)
No, Brady was an aberration and only top-15 rated QBs are worth consideration (8 votes)
You are misrepresenting the second group (M/W/W/C) as capable of starting soon when they are not (see why below [please comment if this one]) (2 votes)
42 total votes