I see many of the mock drafts showing Matt Ryan to be picked very early in the 1st round--sometimes even 1st overall, but usually never lower than top five--and often with no other QBs taken until second. The more I look at it, and the more I think about this, that seems to be quite an unneccesary risk.
As for the first overall pick, in the past thirty-or-so years I see four QBs that absolutely could not be allowed to slip past the #1 pick: John Elway (1983), Troy Aikman (1989), Peyton Manning (1998), and Michael Vick (2001). Elway was the complete package coming in to the league: born leader and winner, super athelete, and a cannon arm. Aikman didn't have all of the tools of the other three, but he was an excellent QB in an otherwise not-so-great class. Manning was the prototype NFL pocket passer even as a college sophomore--he was a 100%, can't miss, guarantee to be an elite NFL player and futer HOFer. And, despite the current situation which was unforseeable in 2001, Vick was an athlete at QB like never before seen and had all the talent to revolutionize the position. Matt Ryan (or any other QB in the 2008 class, for that matter) does not belong in this group.
But even top 5 seems questionable to me this year:
1. The Dolphins have to address other needs. Plus, they drafted a QB second round last year who didn't look too bad when he played.
2. The Rams don't need a QB, they just need to keep him upright.
3. The Falcons also have many needs. And, (I'll be in the minority in this opinion) the more I watch Joey Harrington play, the more I believe that he's not a bad QB, he's only been cursed with lame teams. In a good situation, I think that Harrington will be a solid QB.
4. The Raiders drafted JaMarcus Russell #1 last year.
5. The Chiefs have QB issues (I'm not sold on Croyle, but he's young enough to prove me wrong) and they may want to draft one, but I wouldn't do it with my 1st pick. They'd get another chance at a QB without spending top-5 money.
I'd even say that 1st round is pushing it this year:
6. The Jets have Clemons and Pennington. Not a threatening duo, but with a young QB who has potential and a veteran who doesn't lose many games, they'll address other areas.
7. The Patriots...do I really have to explain?
8. The Ravens are in a similar situation as the Jets. Smith could turn out to be pretty good. And if McNair will accept a backup/mentor role, he could have a couple more years as a quality role player.
9. The Bengals are set at QB.
10. The Saints are also set.
11. The Bills will continue with Edwards, who played surprisingly well for a rookie.
12. The Broncos look good with Cutler for the next decade.
13. The Panthers have their starter, when he's healthy. They won't use a 1st round pick for a back-up.
14. The Bears do need to look at QB. But that might actually not be their biggest need on offense. Grossman can play...sometimes. The Bears haven't given up on him. They'll go HB or OL.
15. The Lions need a QB of the future. But they have Stanton as a developing QB and Kitna as a decent vet, and they won't spend a 1st round on a rookie to get killed by a swiss cheese OL.
16. The Cards already have their 1st round QB from 2006. And Leinart (even though he's not yet coming along as expected) and Warner are both better than anyone the 2008 class can offer.
17. The Vikes could actually consider a QB. But they'll stick with Jackson's potential.
18-28. The Texans, Eagles, Bucs, Skins, Cowboys, Steelers, Titans, Seahawks, Jags, and Chargers are all set at QB for the forseeable future.
29. The 49ers have other needs than QB. And it might still be a little early to give up on a 2005 1st overall pick.
30. The Packers are now ready for the Aaron Rogers era.
32. The Giants are fine with their SB MVP QB.
Now, here we are in the second round, with QBs still on the board. So, let's just say that you're the Phins, Falcons, Cheifs, or some other team with QB needs, and you decide to pass on a QB in the 1st round. There is still a chance of a full selection come time for your second pick. And if Matt Ryan gets picked up by someone else, you can pick Brian Brohm. Do you really lose anything? Brohm might actually be better.
And if both are gone? There is a bit of a step down from the top two, but with Henne, Woodson, Flacco...do you really lose that much? I don't think so.
Given the situation in 2008, why pay $30 million dollars guaranteed to take a QB in the top five and risk a bust that could hurt your team for years when you could get the same QB (or one close in skills) in the second round for millions less?
Now, I don't really think that the 1st round will pass with no QBs drafted. I just think that if teams look at the QB options in the draft, and then look at the teams picking in the 1st round down the line, addressing other positions in the 1st round might be the smartest way to go.
Great Article. I agree with your conclusion, but I think you have the hindsight of 30 years to come to that conclusion. Elway, Aikman, Manning, and Vick (until dog charges) validated their selection after they were selected. By the way I think you should have put Carson Palmer on that list. Very good QB on a very average team.
Did the Bucs mess up taking Vinny? Were the Colts dumb for taking George? While neither of those players worked out I think most people agreed those were good picks when they were made.
What I do agree with is that taking on projects like Russell and A. Smith are risky given the guaranteed money they command. If you are not 100% committed to the proposition that they will pan out and are not willing to committ the time to see it through you are better off going in another direction.
Last edited by StreetCred on April 10th at 1:17 PM.
I'm thinking the company line in the NFL has become if you're going to be forced to spend big bucks on a top ten pick, then you better select someone who will yield immediate dividends. QBs are nine times out of ten long term projects. I'd be more interested in defensive players early on for the same reason. These guys can usually step right in and play. If a team with a top ten pick has a definite need at QB (Atlanta or Baltimore) there would be quite a risk letting a Ryan go since the lower first round selectors (Carolina, Detroit, Minnesota...) might just snap him up and do so for less money. That's why trading down might be so appealing if someone can't stand to live without Darren McFadden...
StreetCred--You're absolutely right about Palmer. And as only a four year QB, he's still on the upswing.
And I don't think the Bucs or Colts were necessarily wrong. But, looking back we see that the Bucs would have had Rich Gannon and Steve Beuerlein still waiting in the 4th in '87. The Colts were limited by a weaker class, and Jeff George's arm would have been hard to pass up. I left them (and Bledsoe and Eli Manning) off of the list of four must-draft #1s because I think that Elway, Manning, and Vick showed something that absolutely could not be passed up, and Aikman was the only franchise-calibur prospect in his class.
Combine that with the fact that Brady, Romo, Warner, Hasselbeck, Bulger, and others came in late rounds (or undrafted), and high round draft picks for QBs just seems like too high of a risk for rewards that are often matched for much less.
I argue the Michael Vick only to the extent that if he was a cant miss, why did San Diego trade out of that pick? They got LT instead at 5 (Drew Brees at the beginning of the 2nd too) and that worked out well.
On the same token, you could say that He was because ATL was willing to give up so much to get him. Either way that one is a fun argument.
Hey Dwindy-- Look at the great QBs who held a clipboard before ever getting on the field--Joe Montana, Steve Young, Tom Brady... And look at early pick QBs who's career might have turned out better had they not been thrown to the wolves on a bad team on day one--David Carr, Joey Harrington, Tim Couch...
The nature of the draft is that if you're picking early (especially first), then your team is probably pretty bad. If you pick a young QB and send him out to get knocked around and lose games right off the bat, you'll likely end up with a ruined QB, i.e. Carr and Couch.
I agree with you; there are certain position that can contribute early--pass rushers, running backs, and sometimes receivers. Others need some development time, such as QBs, positions that require recognizing defensive schemes and blocking, and read-and-react defensive players. There are always exceptions, of course. Some players come out ready to play--Joe Thomas and Patrick Willis come to mind from last year. Dan Marino came ready to play as a rookie, but he started on a team that was already good. Peyton Manning was just as ready, but the Colts were terrible and as a result Manning got knocked around and got picked a lot in an otherwise OK rookie season. A QB who is not Peyton Manning might not have come back from that.
You wrote an intersting piece on the Wonderlic test a while back, and it seems that there is a correlation: positions that require a higher wonderlic score often require some time for player development, and positions that don't require as high of a score can often have play
Last edited by gunslinger77 on April 11th at 6:30 AM.
BamaBoy--I agree that San Diego came out on top in that trade in the long run. But I think that if San Diego kept the 1st pick, then they would have drafted Vick. I just think that a player with that level of athleticism at the QB position had to be taken 1st. It didn't really pan out, but Vick's potential was limitless. but then, look at the different paths that San Diego and Atlanta have taken since.
That's one of the reasons that the draft is so great. It is fun to argue and consider the possibilities of how things could be.
Rams don't need a quarterback? Marc Bulger is doing the job now, but he's getting older and the Rams stupidly traded a very good QB in Ryan Fitzpatrick, who would have been perfect to mold into the starting position once Bulger was done.
If the Rams drafted Matt Ryan, it wouldn't be an entirely stupid move. It's not a high need, but letting him sit a few years and then taking over could pay off.
The Jets need to start Clemens every game, period.
I agree that the Jets should start Clemens. But, if they have Pennington around and he needs to step in on occasion, he's not the type of QB to come in and make stupid plays. I like Pennington as a back-up, and I think he could be about the safest back-up QB in the league.
As for Bulger, he's only 30--old age for some positions, but a 30-year-old QB will be in his prime for the next five years. Bulger is only 4 months older than Tom Brady. So I think that picking high for a QB, even one to sit for a while, is two or even three years pre-mature. I personally think that the Rams should take Jake Long first and concentrate on keeping Bulger protected and opening holes for Stephen Jackson. I think that drafting Matt Ryan would delay the Rams in getting back to winning by addressing an issue years in the future at the expense of issues that they have now. It could also create a few additional problems, such as: Matt Ryan might be ok with holding a clipboard next year, but not for the next five; Marc Bulger would not be happy with a #2 overall pick breathing down his neck; the entire team might be upset that management drafted like they're in rebuilding mode when the Rams are one of the more fixable of the 2007 losing teams. Plus, I think that if the Rams doo feel the need to start grooming a QB behind Bulger, they could address that issue in later rounds.
Joe Montana was mentioned earlier--he wasn't drafted until the third round.
It appears that the Dolphins will go defense, possibly with Vernon Gholston. The Rams would then be in great position to draft Jake Long. I'm not sold on Matt Ryan. I'd draft Joe Flacco of Delaware in the second round. He has good touch, plus he has a strong arm. Plus, he has good pocket mobility. He'd be sitting his entire rookie year and probably most of his second year. But in year 2, he'd be in for spot duty from time to time. In year 3, he'd compete for a starting job. Flacco to the Rams in Round 2 would be a great fit. He could sit behind Bulger next season, then compete for the starting job.
Yeah, Montana was third round. I also mentioned in that example Tom Brady, who was sixth round. I was just trying to show that late round QBs that get time to learn and build confidence on the practice field can turn into great QBs without the team taking the risk and price of a first round pick.
Flacco so far has looked good, and not just with his passing. He seems like a player with good character and poise, and he comes off as being smart. He also interviews like an NFL vet. I think that those skill also translate to the field.
I don't think that the Rams have a quarterback need this year, necessarily. In fact, I think that if blocking doesn't improve and Bulger has to sit again with injury, it could really damage a rookie QB to have to play in that situation. (I personally think that David Carr's carrer could look much different right now had he not started as a rookie.) But it isn't always about need. Flacco would be hard to pass up in round 2. And if the Falcons, Cheifs, and Fins hold off on QB til round 2, Flacco could still be there for the Rams in round three. Then they have to take him, because he's become too much of a steal. Remember Warner dropping back, surveying the field, air-bombing on defenses, and being as cool about it as if he were out playing backyard ball with some friends? I think Flacco has the tools to be that guy, and I'm sure that Rams fans would love to see that.
