Draft idea: draft QB in the 3rd round, 3 years in a row

[OCinBuffalo]

This is participatory, living thread based on decision support principles. As such, it will probably be fairly interesting, or will fall flat on it's face. In any event, I will modify any of the components of it per your suggestions, if you can make a convincing case to those who choose to participate in it...usefully.

 

The premises:

Every draft pick carries with it a certain amount of risk.

Some positional picks are more risky than others.

Using a #3 pick on a QB is more risky than on an interior DL. Reason: Interior DL is more about measureables than "intangibles", and, there are less things to measure.

Using a #3 pick on a QB is more unsettling to the team as a whole, than using it on an interior DL.

It's more difficult for a #3 draft pick QB, who is expected to compete for, and win, the starting job right away, to make the transition in less than a year, than it is for them to come on the team as a rookie, learn and grow with the rest of the rookies, develop relationships with the other players an coaches, and then start later. On the other hand, a DL doesn't have the same pressure as it relates to how he gets along with the rest of the entire team.

To be a playoff-caliber team, you have to get solid hits on your #1 and #2 draft picks at least 80% of the time.

To be a playoff-caliber team, you want to get a starter out of your #3 picks as often as possible. So, a #3 is supposed to be a good pick, but not a great one.

We already have a solid QB starter. He may not be the franchise, win the SB QB, but Fitz doesn't lack talent, heart, or balls to throw the ball into tough spots, or stand in and take a hit.

Therefore, right now the QB job is Fitz's to lose, not an open competition.

 

(The stuff in parentheses is only here for explanation purposes, and isn't part of the "idea". In this case, if you don't agree with any of the above premises, then tell us why. Modifying the premises means modifying the rest of it, which I am willing to do if you can make a reasonable case to everybody else.)

 

The method:

1. Publicly state that you are going to draft 3 #3 QBs over the course of the next 3 drafts, and only these 3, and draft accordingly.

2. Sign Fitz to a long term(5 years?) contract for reasonable terms asap.

3. Hold an open competition each training camp for the backup positions, while always maintaining that it is Fitz's job to lose.

4. At the end of training camp in year 4, either select one of the draftees to replace Fitz as the starter and trade him, or release/trade one of the draftees. Hopefully there is enough value in the QBs, or Fitz, to trade one of them.

 

(The method is based on the premises. This way, the draftees know the score, the fans, media, other teams, everybody knows exactly what to expect going in. We are using picks that are supposed to represent good, not great players, but, we are using 3 of them in a row. It also means that you are mitigating your risk by using high picks on less risky positions. If you think the method should be changed, make sure you based your changes on the premises, or modified premises so we can avoid chaos.)

 

I conclude that this is a good way to mitigate risk, improve the team as a whole, while not putting everything on the shoulders of a 22 year old kid, diversifying our assets(draft picks) in a way that is likely to protect us from a single, all or nothing pick, and bring in a largely solid return on all the picks in total. Or, I could be completely full of crap.