The real problem with drafting “franchise” QBs with a high pick is really about NFL status quo and mentality moreso than the actual risk:reward yield of the pick.
It is definitely worth spending high picks on quarterbacks because of the obviously insanely disproportionate payoff if the QB hits.
The issue is that teams are stubborn and keep these guys too long, too long of a leash, because if the QB busts then the coach, GM etc often get fired, so they continue stringing along the fans that their guy will improve, get new OC, get different personnel, and then 3-4 years are burned when usually it’s very obvious after 2 years (max) that this was a bad pick.
Teams should take chances on QBs with high picks, but they should continue to look at, sign, and draft other QBs as well, rather than dedicating a multi-year building process to an unproven guy who more likely than not will bust.
Thanks @Deus Irae
I sorta love keeping Odunze and Penix together.
i know its a little silly, but if we don't go with one of the top 3 QBs at #3, then I'd very seriously consider double dipping like this to bring in 2 prospects that can compete for the starting job in 2025.. loser becomes a backup or traded
View attachment 4919
View attachment 4920
View attachment 4921
View attachment 4922
View attachment 4923
That's all the way back to 2004.
It's never made sense to me that teams don't do it regardless of how high they take the first QB. If you like 2 QBs, take them both. So, for example, draft Maye and Penix, and let them fight it out for the next 4-5 years. I get that you might not consider your established QB looking over his shoulder at another starter level QB to be a wise use of resources , but draftees aren't established.
I mean, granted that it didn't work out with a Lombardi for the Redskins, but drafting both RGIII and Kirk Cousins was obviously the smart play in that draft, so why should teams not do that with a higher pick when they need the QB?