Why would they toss another early round pick at the position after drafting a guy 3 years ago? Aren't the answers obvious? Why did they select a first round QB in 2014 after drafting one in 2012? They need to address the position and solve the problem.mansquatch wrote:Lets say they do that and they keep tossing 2nd-4th round picks at the back up role. How many busts will be tolerated before someone asks "We keep blowing picks on backups, but our OL sucks, umm what?" Also, why would they toss another early round pick at QB after drafting a guy 3 years ago? Does any NFL team do that? GB didn't use one on Rogers until what, 12-13 years into Favre's tenure there?
They also need to have a Plan B because when their Plan A QB fails or suffers a catastrophic injury, having a solid backup plan in place who is already familiar with the system can prevent a season from going up in flames and can also prevent a situation exactly like the one the team faces now.
Of course, as I pointed out earlier, they don't necessarily have to use early round picks to address the backup position with a young talent and still do better than undrafted free agents and past-their-mediocre-prime journeymen.
You don't see a difference in quality between Stave and McCarron?I guess another way to look at it is to go this route: What team with a QB under 28 years of age that is considered a franchise guy is investing early (round 1-3) picks in Quarterbacks? AJ McCarron was a 5th round pick BTW. We've got our Joel Stave on the roster, so how come he represents bad roster management but a 5th rounder, ergo McCarron is drafting foresight? Just not seeing it.
You're imposing this Round 1-3 criteria on this subject. The Vikings may need to draft a QB that high again because of Bridgewater's injury but if he was healthy, they could possibly do what I'm suggesting a little later (not that a third round investment in a good backup QB would be a bad idea).
I'm suggesting what I consider a smart strategy and criticizing the Vikings for not learning from past mistakes. There ARE other NFL teams that do this. The Bengals are doing it. The Redskins did it. The Raiders are doing it. The Chargers did it. New England, KC, Green Bay at times... Seattle did it and it worked out brilliantly for them.Or put it even a third way: Which NFL team could have their starting QB have happen to them what we just had with TB and not be up turd creek without a paddle? Does ANYONE here really think the Cowboys are going to have a solid season this year with their current QB situation? To me this is just silly. You guys are ragging on the front office because they do not do something that hardly any other NFL team does.
developing young, quality depth at QB is not a new or novel idea.
No, that's a misrepresentation of our argument. I'm ticked off that they thought the QB depth chart they had was adequate, not that they haven't spent another early round pick on a QB since 2014.Most teams take a shot with a high pick on a QB prospect when the current franchise guy is aging. When they don't have "that guy" they have to spend high picks until they find him, but it also takes a few years to determine whether or not the current high pick is "that guy." We are going into year 3 of the TB era and you guys are ticked off that after year 2 they didn't toss another pick on another QB in the early rounds.
I'm advocating good scouting and smart choices to address a long-term problem. It's easy to pick a few players like you did above and make the idea sound questionable. Would I rather have Garoppalo than Kendricks or Alexander? I don't know but I'd certainly rather have Russell Wilson than Josh Robinson, who the Vikes selected ahead of him in R3 of 2012. I'd rather have Kirk Cousins than Jarius Wright or Connor Cook than Willie Beavers.As I always ask on this stuff, what are willing to give up for that because if you draft a QB in round 2, then you are not drafting something else there. Should we have given up on Kendricks or Alexander to have a Jimy Garropolo on the roster instead? That is basically what you are advocating.
You're making something quite practical and reasonable sound impossible. It's not. Furthermore, it's necessary. Depth at QB is crucial and it's even more crucial to find a viable, productive long term starter. Bridgewater's chances of being that guy just got considerably worse and frankly, they didn't look that great in the first place. I see no reason keep approaching the position as the Vikes have been approaching it. The Vikes haven't been landing top-of-the-first round Manning types with the early picks they've spent on QBs so they need to keep digging, keep scouting and grinding. They need to have a Plan A and a Plan B. Solve the problem. Create good depth at the position. It's smart. It's certainly better than ending up in the position they're in now or the position they were in when Ponder failed or the position they were in when Favre retired...
