Quote:No problem.

 

http://bit.ly/1cfQ5IR

 

It's earth shattering how few were picked with the top two picks. :woot:

 

The problem is not every draft is the same. You can't just take a cumulative look at the history and assume that because "scenario B" worked in the past, does not mean that it is fine that if you don't get "scenario A".

 

Last year, I wouldn't even have cared if we picked 1, 2, 3, or 10.  The talent was bunched up, and that is proving to be true on the field (so far). 2012 however, is another year like this year. That year had two prizes: Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin. One team decided to pony up RG3 and managed a king's ransom in return. The other just took their prize. In both cases, I cannot imagine that their fans would trade Luck and their RG3-haul for two-three more wins from the previous year.

 

By the way, since you're using the ROTY as your argument (one that is flawed to begin with, since how a player performs in their rookie year is not always an indicator of future success), why don't you focus on the recent ones? 

 

Last five years it has been Ryan, Harvin, Bradford, Newton, RG3. 

 

Matt Ryan should have been #1, given that the Fins needed a QB. They screwed up in not taking him, and now the guy they took is no longer with them. This set them back at least 3-4 years until Tannehill.

 

Harvin won the year after, but the #1 pick got injured and missed the entire season. Had Stafford been healthy, he could have been the ROY. Regardless, now you take Stafford instead of Harvin.

 

After that, it's been Bradford, Newton, and RG3...that would be #1 pick, #1 pick, #2 pick (and the #1 certainly wasn't no slouch either).

 

 

If anything, recent trend shows that if there's a QB there worth taking #1 or #2....then you take them.

---