Why you take a QB at 4

[jterrell]

San Francisco acquired Steve Young while they still had Montana and rebooted a dynasty.
GB drafted Rodgers while Brett Favre was a top 3 QB and won another Super Bowl.

Arguing you can't or shouldn't draft a QB while you have a great one on his last legs is really poor logic and ignores history.

 

[stilltheguru88]

San Francisco acquired Steve Young while they still had Montana and rebooted a dynasty.
GB drafted Rodgers while Brett Favre was a top 3 QB and won another Super Bowl.

Arguing you can't or shouldn't draft a QB while you have a great one on his last legs is really poor logic and ignores history.

Neither were 4th overall picks but continue.

 

[mattjames2010]

How about instead of discussing the QB position as a whole, you actually you know, discuss the QBs projected in the top 5-10?

You don't just address a position in the draft because there is a hole, you have to like the players as well. For all that rambling in your initial post, all you're saying is Romo is old and we need a future at QB. Okay, we all know we need to replace Romo eventually. How about telling us why these QBs should be drafted?

 

[waving monkey]

Neither were 4th overall picks but continue.

not sure thats so important compared to acquiring the most important position on the team

 

[waving monkey]

How about instead of discussing the QB position as a whole, you actually you know, discuss the QBs projected in the top 5-10?

You don't just address a position in the draft because there is a hole, you have to like the players as well. For all that rambling in your initial post, all you're saying is Romo is old and we need a future at QB. Okay, we all know we need to replace Romo eventually. How about telling us why these QBs should be drafted?

Two of those QB's [Goff and Wentz] are highly regarded by many now s to their grades
and skills there are lots of reports already produced

 

[Alexander]

How about instead of discussing the QB position as a whole, you actually you know, discuss the QBs projected in the top 5-10?

You don't just address a position in the draft because there is a hole, you have to like the players as well. For all that rambling in your initial post, all you're saying is Romo is old and we need a future at QB. Okay, we all know we need to replace Romo eventually. How about telling us why these QBs should be drafted?

Okay.

Here is the discussion. Goff, Lynch and Wentz are worthy of top ten discussion.

Do you need something else?

I think there has been a lot to most people's decision to endorse a QB in the top 10. Dozens of threads about it on this site if you care do indulge yourself. But the fact is you don't want to deal with it. You would rather just ignore it and pretend that 4-12 was just an unfortunate event

And it is a lot more than just needing to replace Romo five years from now like you have bought the Jerry Jones hook-line-and-sinker on. There is also a reserve this year.

You don't want to discuss it, first, because you can't. You have not bothered to even acknowledge the reason to draft one.

 

[mattjames2010]

Okay.

Here is the discussion. Goff, Lynch and Wentz are worthy of top ten discussion.

Do you need something else?

I think there has been a lot to most people's decision to endorse a QB in the top 10.

And it is a lot more than just needing to replace Romo.

You don't want to discuss it, first, because you can't. You have not bothered to even acknowledge the reason to draft one.

WRONG. I have always stated I am NOT against drafting a QB in the top 5-10 IF the value is there. At the end of the day, if the scouts like one of those QBs, they will be drafted.

The "Romo is old and injury plagued, we need his replacement in the near future" argument is an opinion nearly every agrees with. It doesn't need to be repeated a thousand times a day, we all get it.

The question needs to be why we NEED to draft one of those QBs in the top 5. I'm all for hearing an argument for it, but still waiting.

 

[Alexander]

WRONG. I have always stated I am NOT against drafting a QB in the top 5-10 IF the value is there. At the end of the day, if the scouts like one of those QBs, they will be drafted.

The "Romo is old and injury plagued, we need his replacement in the near future" argument is an opinion nearly every agrees with. It doesn't need to be repeated a thousand times a day, we all get it.

The question needs to be why we NEED to draft one of those QBs in the top 5. I'm all for hearing an argument for it, but still waiting.

Although your stance is primitive, I will indulge you, hopefully on a level that you can understand.

"NEED" is a construct.

People view it in different ways.

You still with me? Good.

NEED can apply in many different ways.

NEED now. Or NEED in the future.

You focus on NEED now, you spend year after year, plugging whatever leak in the dam that was very obvious. But there are others, like QB that are slow leaks. They grow, year after year. You keep laughing it off and it grows. And even when it starts to show as kind of important, there are always other loud gushers that have to be plugged up, even though they do not threaten the integrity of the dam.

There is no good time to address this need. But the worst time is when you NEED one.

The QB position is always at a premium. There are always a collection of 5-8 teams, sometimes 8-12 if there were truly honest and did not have horses in the race, that NEED a QB.

NEED is a poor way to draft.

Jerry, Stephen and the rest of the clowns probably think just like you do.

Maybe that explains why we are celebrating our 20 year anniversary of our last SB appearance.

You think so?

 

[Beast_from_East]

Pretty hard to argue against a QB this year if the top three grade out as 1st rounders. Harder to argue QB2 is not a screaming need that has to be addressed.

Personally, I go QB and don't look back and consider it the one fortunate thing about this dismal season. But even if we don't, I won't cry about another impact defender if we get one.

Exactly Idgit, the smart play here is to take a QB.........impact defenders don't translate to winning if you don't have a QB.

Aaron Donald has 20 sacks in 2 seasons with the Rams and they have not even sniffed the playoffs............no QB.

Besides, who are these quality vet backups that are going to save the day if Romo gets hurt again? RG3? Johnny Football?

HAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAA...........yea, good luck with that, maybe we win 1 game out of 12 or 13.

 

[mattjames2010]

Two of those QB's [Goff and Wentz] are highly regarded by many now s to their grades
and skills there are lots of reports already produced

Although your stance is primitive, I will indulge you, hopefully on a level that you can understand.

"NEED" is a construct.

People view it in different ways.

You still with me? Good.

NEED can apply in many different ways.

NEED now. Or NEED in the future.

You focus on NEED now, you spend year after year, plugging whatever leak in the dam that was very obvious. But there are others, like QB that are slow leaks. They grow, year after year. You keep laughing it off and it grows. And even when it starts to show as kind of important, there are always gushers that have to be plugged up.

There is no good time to address this need. But the worst time is when you NEED one.

The QB position is always at a premium. There are always a collection of 5-8 teams, sometimes 8-12 if there were truly honest and did not have horses in the race, that NEED a QB.

NEED is a poor way to draft.

Jerry, Stephen and the rest of the clowns probably think just like you do.

Maybe that explains why we are celebrating our 20 year anniversary of our last SB appearance.

You think so?

So again, you just did what the OP did.

Veteran QB nearing the end of his career, no future QB behind him, must draft QB with the #4 pick...without considering the other positions of need, the BPA, or the flaws those QBs have that many scouts are continuing to point out.

I doubt there are that many people against drafting a QB if this was a strong QB draft class. This is why the discussion needs to get away from just the position and needs to start discussing the prospects.

So we can start a better and more productive conversation. If Goff/Wentz is still there at 4, why should we draft them over prospects like Ramsey, Bosa, Treadwell, Hargreaves, Jacks? I would say each one of those positions are a need, and some of them as prospects are far at their position than Goff and Wentz.

 

[Beast_from_East]

No matter what we say..... The team went into the '15 season with SB aspirations. Then #9 got hurt, which exposed other areas:
1. Passing D
2. Pass rush
3. Back up QB
4. Run Stop
Which I think the order of priority has been STATED by the team.......
If they love Wentz, so be it..... The weakness of the team isn't a back up QB until #9 can't take a snap.

The team went 1-11 with 3 different vet backup QBs..............I beg to differ that the QB position is not the biggest problem right now. #9 not taking a snap can be just one play away and then the season is over.

You cant operate an NFL team like that...........you cant lose every single game when your starter goes down, either change your offense so other QBs can have success or go find you another stud QB that can run the system to the same level of your starter.

Those are your two options and since there were no coaching changes, pretty obvious the offensive system will stay the same........so option #2 is a go.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Has any team in nfl history drafted a qb top 5 with a 100 mil qb on the roster?

Don't know about the $100 million dollar QB thing, but there is precedent for taking a player in the top 5 and not playing him right away.

Steve McNair was drafted 3rd overall in 1995 and sat for 2 seasons before becoming the starting QB in 1997 for the Titans.

 

[jnday]

You can't use a no 4 pick on a QB when you already have a 100 mil qb with years left on his contract. I guess you could if the rest of the team is in good shape but it is a luxury and one teams that have done a good job building can take. This team has holes all over the place and it doesn't matter who the back up QB is when you are lacking in so many areas.

The QB drafted with the 4 th pick will be the future of this team. It doesn't matter what kind of contract Romo has if he is injured and can not play. Shortsighted thinking is why this team struggles to be average year after year. No other rookie at any position is going to make an impact in his first season. It is rare for it to happen. It seems like many posters fail to realize that the Romo era is ending fast. I know fans want him to get a ring, but it is doubtful to happen uness it is miracle. This year can provide the future QB without having to trade up a giveaway countless picks to get in the drafting position that they have this year. Do you want to wait until it takes multiple high picks over several seasons to get the draft position that the team has now? That approach kills the future.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The problem with that story is a lot but the most basic is this:
CLE has NOT used it's top pick on a QB since 1999.
It did select Johnny, Weeden and Quinn in R1 but only after drafting other guys first with top 10 picks.
They have lost forever and keep losing because you don't win without a QB and you have to use premium resources at QB.

There's more to it than that. A QB with potential is necessary but not sufficient. That QB needs to come into a good situation. That means quality coaching and some talent around him. Personally, I think the Cowboys are in a fantastic position to bring along a young QB because of the resources they've put into the OL. He won't get hit within 3 seconds play after play like David Carr did. He won't (I hope) face a revolving door of coaching and systems like Alex Smith did in SF. Much more opportunity to develop.

 

[waving monkey]

All I can comment on via the QB draft candidates is what we all read.

In that vain; I have read the scouts were very excited about Wentz
and hope he didn't blow up during the off season. Wentz however did
become the media darling so now we're talking about how high
would the office go to acquire Wentz?

If they don't go #4 minium my guess is their voluntary passing on Wentz.

 

[Nightman]

Don't know about the $100 million dollar QB thing, but there is precedent for taking a player in the top 5 and not playing him right away.

Steve McNair was drafted 3rd overall in 1995 and sat for 2 seasons before becoming the starting QB in 1997 for the Titans.

Plus it isn't a real 100m contract. It was a 4/68m extension to the one year he had left for 2013.

DAL was never paying him 20m a year for 2018-9.

 

[baltcowboy]

You take a QB at 4 because Goff, Lynch and Wentz can all play and have the potential to be future franchise QB's in a league that is dictated by the QB position. Taking a QB outside of the first round has had an abysmal track record. And if this team doesn't make the playoffs next season, it should be adios to Garrett and Co. and at least the new head coach can come in with a potential franchise QB.





YR

People do not realize how important a young potential franchise quarterback is. Even though we could have drafted Martin and Derrick Carr 2014 instead of Lawrence. I would trade both Lawrence and Martin for Carr right now. I bet the Raiders say no. My point is Wentz, Goff, and Lynch are higher rated prospects then Derrick Carr was in 2014 so we need to take the chance.

 

[bodi]

Aikman
He finished 1989 with an 0–11
Aikman led the Cowboys to a 7–7 record in the 1990 season

Was Aikman ready for this during his rookie season?
No.

Peyton Manning of the AFC Champion Denver Broncos wasn’t ready either back when he entered the NFL with the Indianapolis Colts in 1998.
3–13 record
No

Selecting Wentz with their first selection next April could be the smartest thing Jones has ever done since making his first ever draft selection in Troy Aikman back in 1989.

This move could end up backfiring, as it could with any other player at any other position, let alone another passer.

Wentz is not a polished product as far as being ready to start in the NFL right away.

 

[waving monkey]

A QB picked with the 4th pick won't cost more than bringing in RG3 or one of the other FA QBs. There is this thing called the rookie cap. Gone are the days where QBs like Bradford signed a $70 contract before ever taking a snap in the NFL.

There's a ace reply

 

[LatinMind]

For me all the above considered I think this year getting a QB is vitally important. I do not know when I'll get this kind of draft selection again. --hopefully not in my lifetime. I do not see a list of great prospects for 2017 or 2018 staring me in the face. And I do not see Romo lasting beyond 2 more full NFL seasons. A 3rd year would seem either forced (due to zero other legit options) or a gift from the football Gods. So I'll gladly take a QB this year that requiresonly 1 draft pick used and let him develop at a natural pace. Give him the pre-seasons and all the practice snaps Romo misses as part of his careful usage. Give him game time in blow outs and otherwise bring him along at a cordial pace adding to his skillset and getting him mentally ready to blitzing and all out pressure. Give him the best chance to succeed.

Last yr none of these guys were Rd1 guys, and even going into the final weeks of the season the only one that looked like a RD1 pick was Lynch. Then Wentz is climbing without playing, and Goff started climbed because he beat up airforce. But was (9TD/9INT) against ranked opponents. You talk about pojection not to be put above production basically, but ur all excited over it with this draft. These guys pad their stats with bubble screens and quick slants. your stumbling all over your own feet with this kind of post. None of these QBs are worth the 4th pick IMO. But if it was my decision to reach it would be for Lynch Then maybe Goff in the teens and Wenzt in Rd2.