Post count: 1520

Missing on any position sucks, but nothing sets a franchise back as much as missing on a QB. It's the biggest gamble a franchise can take. As others have said, unless they are 100 percent sold on a guy, you don't take him, especially if you have a promising young QB already on the roster that doesn't have much around him to work with.

But what happens when you don't really have a promising QB on the roster? Because this is the situation we are in right now. McCown is a career backup, Glennon has done very little in the time he's had to show he's going to be any better than the myriad of mediocre/average-bad QBs in this league. You can never be 100% sold on a draft pick, that notion doesn't make sense. The NFL Draft is filled with variance and unpredictability. Even with Andrew Luck, you can anticipate that he was going to be a great QB, but you didn't know. Ryan Leaf was thought to be as sure of a thing as ever, was a monumental bust. Yes, a bad QB can set back a franchise, but that's hardly justification for not drafting one, especially given your ridiculous criteria that you have to be 100% sold on him.

So you'd be comfortable with us taking a QB if the staff had doubts about him being the answer?We're to draft a QB that we aren't really sure about. This is your stance? The alternative stance of wanting our staff to be 100 percent sold on him is, in your words, ridiculous? You're serious? Just confirm that you're serious for me.Thanks.

Please wait…