Quote:The more I read my OP, the more convinced I am that someone else wrote it after being on a Benadryl bender, but I'll do the best that I can to try and fix it.

 

The underlying point that I am trying to drum up conversation over is this; between taking a Quarterback who is viewed as having less talent than other players in his class simply to improve your Quarterback situation

 

- or -

 

drafting the more talented player and having to live with a less than ideal Quarterback situation

 

Which of those is worse for the team?

 

 

I'm not trying to say that the Quarterback will bust - even though I wrote that for some really lame reason that I don't even know - but rather how does it affect you to take a Quarterback who is less talented than say a Defensive End? Yes, it improves your QB position, but a more talented guy has gone somewhere else.

OK, I'll take a crack at the question, version 3.0.  

 

First, it's based on the premise that the QB is less talented than the other player.  How much less talented?  ESPN currently has Clowney rated 97, Watkins 95 and Bridgewater 94.  Let's assume this to be an accurate talent variation rating.  

 

Next, how good (or bad) are your current players the draft choices will be replacing?  What move will give you the greatest improvement at any position?  

 

Finally, you need to value each position's relative importance.  I don't think anyone would disagree that QB is the single most important position on the team.  LT is probably the consensus #2, but where do you go from there?   

 

Short answer is you take the guy who most improves the team but, with the third overall, you do not take a guy who's only somewhat better than average, just to replace a guy who's only slightly worse than average!  You sign an FA to do that.  If you can't honestly see star potential, the guy's not worth #3.

---