This is why you take a QB at 4.........

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
61,726
Reaction score
95,235
Let's dispense with some of the inevitable posts that will come.

Yes, the QB they could take at 4 could end up being a total bust. Absolutely. Positively. But the chances that the QB you take at 4 will develop is probably higher than the project QB you will end up taking in the 3rd or 4th round too.

But here's what is more likely to happen if you don't take a QB at 4........

2005- Drew Bledsoe (16)
2004- Vinny Testaverde (15) / Drew Henson (1)
2003- Quincy Carter (16)
2002- Chad Hutchinson (9) / Quincy Carter (7)
2001- Quincy Carter (8) / Anthony Wright (3) / Ryan Leaf (3) / Clint Stoerner (2)
 
Rockport

Rockport

AmberBeer
Messages
46,580
Reaction score
46,004
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Sydla said:
Let's dispense with some of the inevitable posts that will come.

Yes, the QB they could take at 4 could end up being a total bust. Absolutely. Positively. But the chances that the QB you take at 4 will develop is probably higher than the project QB you will end up taking in the 3rd or 4th round too.

But here's what is more likely to happen if you don't take a QB at 4........

2005- Drew Bledsoe (16)
2004- Vinny Testaverde (15) / Drew Henson (1)
2003- Quincy Carter (16)
2002- Chad Hutchinson (9) / Quincy Carter (7)
2001- Quincy Carter (8) / Anthony Wright (3) / Ryan Leaf (3) / Clint Stoerner (2)
Click to expand...

They're not taking a QB at #4. These threads are the definition of insanity. Move on and everyone will be better off especially yourself.
 
texbumthelife

texbumthelife

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,738
Reaction score
23,273
This team's inability to find and develop QB wasn't just because of their draft philosophy. It was because the scouting department was atrocious and we had (have) a GM in training.

I sincerely don't know why you needed to make another thread on this...
 
NEODOG

NEODOG

44cowboys22
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
2,735
The reason NOT is how much $ we are allotting to the QB position..... By taking @#4 we are basically giving away a starter position $ elsewhere

Back up QB or starter elsewhere?
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
61,726
Reaction score
95,235
44cowboys22 said:
The reason NOT is how much $ we are allotting to the QB position..... By taking @#4 we are basically giving away a starter position $ elsewhere

Back up QB or starter elsewhere?
Click to expand...

I'll take the potential franchise QB to replace a QB in Romo who could be out of football in 3 years over a starter elsewhere on this team. A franchise QB is the hardest thing to find in football. If I have a rare chance at a Top 5 pick and my scouts tell me either Goff or Lynch has franchise potential, I take one of them without even blinking.

I can find a DE or a CB or a LB in free agency. You can't find a franchise QB there.
 
MrPhil

MrPhil

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
1,456
AmberBeer said:
They're not taking a QB at #4. These threads are the definition of insanity. Move on and everyone will be better off especially yourself.
Click to expand...

They may not take a QB at #4, so you may very well be correct. However, the Dallas Cowboys "strategy" with the QB position appears, to me, to be the definition of insanity. As described by the OP, this organization did not do a very good job finding a replacement for Aikman. If Jerry is to be taken at his word, it appears as though they intend to follow a similar path with Romo. It may work out, it may not. As a fan of the team, I hope it does. The problem is that, historically speaking, the odds are against it.
 
SilverStarCowboy

SilverStarCowboy

The Actualist
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
1,998
Sydla said:
Let's dispense with some of the inevitable posts that will come.

Yes, the QB they could take at 4 could end up being a total bust. Absolutely. Positively. But the chances that the QB you take at 4 will develop is probably higher than the project QB you will end up taking in the 3rd or 4th round too.

But here's what is more likely to happen if you don't take a QB at 4........

2005- Drew Bledsoe (16)
2004- Vinny Testaverde (15) / Drew Henson (1)
2003- Quincy Carter (16)
2002- Chad Hutchinson (9) / Quincy Carter (7)
2001- Quincy Carter (8) / Anthony Wright (3) / Ryan Leaf (3) / Clint Stoerner (2)
Click to expand...

Or 1st rounders Tim Couch, Brandon Weeden and Brady Quinn....add Johny Foosball.

Nothing set in stone by a team consistently selecting a QB. 2016 QBs are no Luck.

Waste a 4 overall for another potential bust at QB, which are numerous even on good years. Living with that kind of mistake holding a clip board while a Blue Chipper thrives, would be an epic beat down for years to come.

WAKE UP: There is not one single QB coming out who is projected as a starter from Game 1 for their perspective NFL drafted team. Which speaks volumes, as it should.
 
Last edited:
Idgit

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I want a QB at 4, too, if one is there, but there's something of a chicken and egg argument to be had about drafting them in the first round. I'd argue that the single biggest reason why talented players learn the NFL QB position is they get reps. Reps in practice, and reps in games. And the natural tendency is to give the reps to the guy you spent the most resources on. That happens if it's a first round pick, or it happens if it's guy like Foles, or soon, Osweiler, who gets some reps in a game and then gets elevated to 'starting QB' status via good FA timing.

It's a rare guy like Romo or Cousins who gets better and better with limited reps. Even Brady and Warner got their extended reps due to long term injuries.
 
percyhoward

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
I want a QB at #4, simply because it's that time. Has nothing to do with where we're drafting -- that's just a bonus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top