Quote:It's a skewed argument at a skewed position. For one, there's only room for one QB on the field at a time (aside from specialty packages), and if a team has a capable player at the position, which most do, they're not as likely to take a rookie in the first round of the draft. This means that fewer QBs are drafted in the first round. When you narrow it down even further by focusing on underclassmen only, you're looking at, on average, two guys a year, maybe three, at the position that has the highest expectations and--partly because of that--the highest bust rate in the draft.

 

Does staying in school for their senior year help QBs? Sure, possibly. They get one more year of experience leading a team at the college level. If a junior QB comes out and struggles to lead his team, one could make an argument that the extra year in college might have helped. But if a QB's physical tools are at a top-drawer level, they're respected by teammates and have a history of success, it doesn't make sense to avoid drafting that player. He'll probably bust; most first-round QBs do, but if the only red flag is that the guy's a junior, that GM might want to find a new line of work. Let's assume the Colts had drafted Trent Richardson first overall instead of Luck. Luck, by the way, did have a year of eligibility left. Richardson has a 3.5 ypc average, and Luck is arguably the best young QB in the game. How would you like to explain your logic to Jim Irsay in taking Richardson over Luck because Luck had eligibility left?

 

Luck had a year of eligibility, but he had been at Stanford for 4 years.  He was NOT a junior.  Bridgewater and Manziel would both be actual juniors.  Luck redshirted.  It's confusing I know.  But the argument I'm trying to make is that younger guys do not have a good track record.  Gabbert and Newton are in that group.  Leaf is in that group.  Luck is not in that group.

---