I'm not saying Bortles is a bust at this point. I'm rooting for the guy, and I think he has the tools to be great. But, at this point he hasn't done much to cement his status as a franchise player. IMO, if we have a top 2 pick, and we CANNOT trade down, I would strongly consider taking Mariota or Winston. Have one of those guys compete with Bortles, and let the best man win the job, and try to trade the other. If both guys show that they can be franchise QB's, you can make a profit in draft picks for the loser of the QB battle.
We shouldn't make the same mistake we made in 2004, where we passed on Big Ben, because we 'already had our franchise QB' in Leftwich. Back in those years, rookies were getting paid large salaries, and teams weren't able to make that kind of move for financial reasons. After the new CBA and rookie wage scale, its much more feasible to carry 2 top-of-the-draft QB's at once.
2003-Suggs
2004-Roethlisberger
God, what could have been...
Russell Wilson for a punter, Aaron Rodgers for Matt Jones, JJ Watt for Gabbert, Richard Sherman for Rod Isaac, etc.
Pretty bad decisions but hindsight is 20/20 also. These guys all got passed on by other teams too and they had no clue they'd turn out the way they did.
Just think how many Power Ball LOTTO Winners there would be if the winning numbers were known in advance?
There was a cover story a few years ago in a magazine dedicated toward the what if scenario comparing the Ravens and Jags. It all started with the Jags drafting Suggs and the Ravens drafting Leftwich. The scenario had Big Ben going to the Jags as well.
Admittedly, I'm not the biggest Bortles fan in this forum, but hindsight is always 20/20. 50% of Caldwell's job security ties to the Bortles pick, and when a QB prospect is selected in the top 3, expect to ride him for at least 3 years a la Gabbert.
I support this idea to double down on Qb
Hindsight is great isnt it?
Was Roethlisberger the highest guy on the board? It wasnt Dunta Robinson? Or Jon Vilma? Or Tommie Harris?
Why are they always the BAP when they pan out.
Actually, on his radio show when he was GM, Gene Smith said that Roethlisberger was their top player on their board in 2004, but elected to get Byron some 'help' by taking Reggie Williams.
Quote:Just think how many Power Ball LOTTO Winners there would be if the winning numbers were known in advance?
Of course we don't know if Mariota or Winston are destined to be great NFL QB's. But, having either of those in addition to Bortles, would increase OUR chances of having a great QB. To use your analogy, we might not know winning numbers ahead of time, but at least we can double our chances of winning it.
Teams only get so many chances at picking top QB prospects. IMO, when you have that chance, you have to make sure you get full value for that pick, because opportunities like that are hard to come by. Either recoup the value via trade, or pick the QB.
Quote:Actually, on his radio show when he was GM, Gene Smith said that Roethlisberger was their top player on their board in 2004, but elected to get Byron some 'help' by taking Reggie Williams.
I am sure there are many instances of teams having a quarterback as the top rated player on their board and not taking him. What was the last team to take a quarterback in the first round in consecutive years? If it was a good idea, why does nobody do it?
Quote:Actually, on his radio show when he was GM, Gene Smith said that Roethlisberger was their top player on their board in 2004, but elected to get Byron some 'help' by taking Reggie Williams.
Who got outplayed by Ernest Wilford, a 4th rounder, IIRC...
Quote:I am sure there are many instances of teams having a quarterback as the top rated player on their board and not taking him. What was the last team to take a quarterback in the first round in consecutive years? If it was a good idea, why does nobody do it?
Before the new rookie wage scale implemented in 2011, teams had a legit concern with the feasibility of having 2 highly-drafted QB's on the same team, who would be eating up a nice percentage of that team's salary cap. IMO, I think the new wage scale allows teams to rethink about how they view drafting QB's high. There's no written rule that states that a GM can only have ONE shot at picking his QB. The whole notion that a GM's fate is essentially tied to ONE of his decisions, doesn't make sense to me.
Quote:Before the new rookie wage scale implemented in 2011, teams had a legit concern with the feasibility of having 2 highly-drafted QB's on the same team, who would be eating up a nice percentage of that team's salary cap. IMO, I think the new wage scale allows teams to rethink about how they view drafting QB's high. There's no written rule that states that a GM can only have ONE shot at picking his QB. The whole notion that a GM's fate is essentially tied to ONE of his decisions, doesn't make sense to me.
It hasn't happened yet. And I don't think it is even about the money. It is about having that quarterback you selected the year before and surrounding him with talent to make him maximize his ability. I doubt next year that Jacksonville, Cleveland or Minnesota are going to draft a quarterback again.
Quote:Actually, on his radio show when he was GM, Gene Smith said that Roethlisberger was their top player on their board in 2004, but elected to get Byron some 'help' by taking Reggie Williams.
I thought it was that Gene had him as the top player on HIS board, but Shack overruled it and wanted to build around Byron by taking Williams.
Quote:It hasn't happened yet. And I don't think it is even about the money. It is about having that quarterback you selected the year before and surrounding him with talent to make him maximize his ability. I doubt next year that Jacksonville, Cleveland or Minnesota are going to draft a quarterback again.
Agreed, NFL is too much about winning now, so the only way you draft a QB high is if there are serious concerns with the QB you currently have, either age or performance.
Even though I tend to agree that selecting Mariota or Winston makes sense if you can't trade down, that stuff just generally doesn't happen because of the pressure of winning now. Much easier for me to say that I would, but that pressure isn't on me, and I don't have to explain why to Shad.
Quote:Of course we don't know if Mariota or Winston are destined to be great NFL QB's. But, having either of those in addition to Bortles, would increase OUR chances of having a great QB. To use your analogy, we might not know winning numbers ahead of time, but at least we can double our chances of winning it.
...
And that is exactly why the lottery should be reconsidered. The statistic bear out that more tickets bought do not correlate to more chances as they are independent events. One number selected has just as much chance as any other.
Regarding football, think about a scenario where you and I are drafted to play QB. Are the team's chances now double that one of us will become a star QB? Probably not. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty confident that I won't ever be an NFL QB.
What matters is the quality of the player, not the quantity you select.
The issue isn't that the team didn't select Roethlisberger. The issue is that they selected Reggie Williams.
Quote:And that is exactly why the lottery should be reconsidered. The statistic bear out that more tickets bought do not correlate to more chances as they are independent events. One number selected has just as much chance as any other.
Regarding football, think about a scenario where you and I are drafted to play QB. Are the team's chances now double that one of us will become a star QB? Probably not. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty confident that I won't ever be an NFL QB.
What matters is the quality of the player, not the quantity you select.
A team that has two blue-chip QB prospects has a better chance of having a great QB, than a team that only has one blue-chip QB prospect. Now, im sure we agree that there's the possibility that Team A could strike out twice, while Team B could hit a home run, but the odds were still in Team A's favor.