Quote:
Originally Posted by over the mountain
yeah ruhskins, man i get what your saying but after campbell and ramsey, im kinda done picking up the scraps left on the QB table after teams with the high draft picks take the prime cuts of meat.
dont get me wrong, you can find great QBs after the first 10 picks but id rather we take an honest to goodness swing at one of the top qb prospects and not settle for the 3rd or 4th best qb available in the draft.
its just been so long since weve had a true great QB. sitting at no 4 i cant help but be enamored with the idea of taking a chance on a cream of the crop qb for once.
|
If the prime cuts are underclassman, you're at the wrong butcher.
I don't actually think the prime cuts of this class are underclassmen, but again, that's a valuation problem with defined arbitrage opportunities. Your argument is that 1) arbitrage opportunities don't exist in the NFL draft (at least at QB), which by extension means that 2) drafting higher is drafting smarter. Which is something I disagree with philosophically.
At least, that's what I think I'm reading in that middle paragraph, that getting a great QB after the top ten picks requires good fortune. I don't know if that's what you were trying to say, but I'd agree to an extent. The idea is to get a player in the bottom half of the first round or in the second round
that should have been rated in the top half of the first round. Drafting quarterbacks, at value, is one of the worst strategies that is common in the NFL draft. Quarterbacks need to be taken later than you have them rated.
And if there's no one that's rated higher on the big board than the pick suggests, there's nothing you can do to make the opportunity better. That's essentially playing with the hand you are dealt, and not moving in with whatever just because you are tired of taking down small pots.