clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Thursday Evening Open Thread: Talk To Me About a QB In Round 1

New, comments

I don’t get it.

Derik Hamilton-USA TODAY Sports

I get it.  But I don’t.

The Los Angeles Rams absolutely need help at quarterback.  And they have for some time.  As Evan Silva stated in his most recent read about needs for all 32 NFL teams, "the Rams haven’t had stable quarterback play since the Mark Bulger era."

That was in 2009....2006 if you’re considering his last GOOD season as the Rams’ signal-caller.

Either way, that’s not good, and the results coincide.  They’ve had a crack at the No. 1 overall pick though.  You remember Sam Bradford.  He was, for the most part, a "slam dunk" pick.  But for whatever reasons...or excuses... it didn’t work.

The Rams weren’t necessarily forced to take Bradford in 2010, but how do you pass up on a player who shoulda/woulda/coulda made the team perennial playoff contenders?  They couldn’t.  And I don’t fault them for drafting him.

Regardless, it didn’t work out.  And here we are in 2016, ten years post good-Bulger, and still no closer to an answer at QB.

And, despite my $0.02 on how poorly Jeff Fisher has managed the QB situation while in St. Louis, they can’t simply head into the regular season thinking quarterback isn’t important; because it’s clearly of the utmost importance.

Which brings me to tonight’s topic:

Drafting a quarterback in the first round.

Why?  Maybe the more pertinent question is "whom"?  And then "why" again.

I’ve seen several people say "take a quarterback in the first round."   Ok, I’m listening.  But which one?  And then, again, why that one?  The feel I get, though, is that it doesn’t matter.  Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, Paxton Lynch....who cares, just take one!

And for that reason, I’m perplexed.  We’ve seen Bradford, who was unquestionably that year’s top QB, get drafted No. 1 overall.  He was a player who was expected to excel at the next level.  We witnessed otherwise.  And now we’re talking about selecting the third quarterback taken in 2016.  Is that just to say we did?  Are we hoping "first round QB = immediate success"?  Because I’m not sure that’s how it works, and people who follow college football much closer than I do seem to think that none of this year’s QB crop are Week 1 starters.  So, as I see it, we’re taking a developmental quarterback, instead of an [potential] immediate starter.

Again, I understand how important the position is.  But if you’re saying "take a QB in the first round" I’d like to know why it doesn’t matter which one.  Jared Goff, Carson Wentz, and Paxton Lynch are all projected first round picks for a reason.  But will all of them be signing big contracts at the end of their rookie deals because of it?

I find that hard to believe.  Tell me why taking ANY quarterback in Round 1 is a good idea.

If "trade up and get Goff is your stance" I get it.  If it’s “I think Lynch is the next Cam Newton,” I’ll respect that opinion. If "take whoever’s left at 15" is how you want to roll, help me understand.