Vinny - 2008?

It has to be discussed if you're gonna discuss the QB situation today, next year and the future. We haven't had a usable backup since Jake, and we haven't had an A-list QB. Most teams don't have an A-list guy, so I'm not arguing that....I'm just saying....we have a QB who just had serious surgery from which some have never returned to the field, and we have NO quality backup. Jake was our last good backup, when he was a backup.
Everybody has their opinions about Jake, so there's no reason to debate that for the 12 millionth time, but our backup corps is not servicable and we have nobody in the chute for the future, or next year if Jake can't go.

 

Same for any position. Julius Peppers was, upon signing, our most expensive defensive player and at the time, our richest contract ever. I don't think it's a matter of the cost, nor necessarily the risk. Higher QBs, with exceptions, are more talented. That so many of them go higher than they should, that's a concern. You don't make a stupid pick just to make a pick.

It's an efficient strategy that works at times and doesn't work in others. The same thing I always say to this strategy, or the late round strategy, is that there's no one way to do this.

 

Most teams in the league will struggle if they lose their starting QB. This year the situation is bad but that does not mean Fox is incapable of finding a quality QB for us in the future. He got more out of Rodney Peete than most thought was possible and he found Delhomme. I think he can find another guy when it is time.

 

It is easier to just players at positions other than QB. How fast you run, how strong you are and that sort of thing are valuable in judging defensive ends and other players. They are not so important when it comes to a QB. I think it is harder to judge the quality of a QB in the draft than any other position. That is why there are so many busts.

 

I believe it's time. If we categorically refuse to consider drafting a QB, we are making a mistake. Certainly, this is all speculation on my part, because for all I know they may take a QB in the draft. I just don't think taking a stance saying we won't even look at a QB in the draft is a mistake.

It has already been. Where would we be if we had taken Brady Quinn?? I mean, he could suck just as bad as anyone, but he might not.
Hindsight is 20/20, and I liked the Jarrett pick at the time, so it's really just my $.02.

 

well, need for the position is a big reason. People gamble, people pick guys who don't fit, and don't take the time to develop. There haven't been an inordinate amount of busts where a guy just didn't have ability.

 

If we took Quinn at 14, we'd have played him too early, after him holding out, and things might be better but we would've already done two big things to fuck up his development. You don't pick a QB to start him before he's ready.

 

I have no problem with drafting a guy and letting him sit for a couple of years. What that means though is that he is a later round pick. Guys who go early end up starting right away and a lot of them can not handle it. We drafted Fasani and Lefors but neither one showed anything. No reason to stop trying though.

 

you really don't have to start a guy right off, and IMO, it's stupid to do so for any QB unless absolutely necessary. Rorethlisberger is the exception, and his inexperience ended up costing them.

 

The only QBs who peak during their first contract are ones who suck or got hurt. I've said it numerous times, but quarterbacks peak later than any other position (28, the last time I ran the numbers), and the years after that peak are generally better than the ones preceding it.