The "draft and groom future QB, sign a vet to start for 2 yrs" plan

[Mother Grabber]

Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre is a lot like Steve Young and Joe Montana. Not really the same situation we're in.

[KillerKat]

Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre is a lot like Steve Young and Joe Montana. Not really the same situation we're in.

yet alotta posters reference Rodgers as reason to have our rookie QB sit despite more evidence of the contrary in recent years.

[frash.exe]

here's a similar plan from the vikings to the one i described

in 2006 new head coach Brad Childress and the Vikings drafted a marginally talented prospect in Tarvaris Jackson and kept Brad Johnson who was signed a year earlier to start as the "proven vet" while Jackson learned all the complexities of the NFL

Johnson didn't get them to the playoffs, Jackson started as a rookie, and never really looked like a franchise QB until they said fug it, signed Brett Favre, made it to the NFCC in 2009, and then half a season later Childress was fired and now QB is arguably the Vikings' biggest need

sounds like a great 5 year plan you guys have

[R0CKnR0LLA]

So if you draft a terrible QB to be your future starter then eventually you'll realize that he is actually indeed terrible and have to get someone else?

I know there's a point to this thread I'm just not sure what it is.

[KillerKat]

That if you have the opportunity to draft a high prospective QB in the draft, while knowing what you have is bad, you take him and start him. Even though you drafted a QB the year before and started him early and he sucked, he is just an anomaly in a era where most of the time you find success in starting your rookie QB. Besides many teams passed over him in the draft. Some teams passed twice. And who's to say Newton will be good after sitting on the bench a year or two when theres less evidence in recent years that that works and more evidence that starting the new rookie QB does work........just guessing....

[frash.exe]

So if you draft a terrible QB to be your future starter then eventually you'll realize that he is actually indeed terrible and have to get someone else?

I know there's a point to this thread I'm just not sure what it is.

you know Rocknrolla if the very understandable point i'm trying to make is too advanced for your feeble mind to wrap itself around then maybe you should stay in the draft forum and work on your fantasy GMing skills

[TheRealDeal]

He's saying don't draft Cam, a taller version of Tarvaris Jackson?

[nagai]

Why are you guys so confused? What's so hard to understand? He's against the complete packaged deal of signing a vet, pick a QB at 1 and then sitting the first overall pick. I agree, the plan is outdated. If we draft a QB at 1, we'll start him.

[TheRealDeal]

He talked about marginally talented as well, saying we should stay away from that using his Tarvaris example.

Is he not referencing Cam as a freak athlete but a marginally talented QB?

[Happy Panther]

Why are you guys so confused? What's so hard to understand? He's against the complete packaged deal of signing a vet, pick a QB at 1 and then sitting the first overall pick. I agree, the plan is outdated. If we draft a QB at 1, we'll start him.

The point is simple and kind of dumb. we get it.

I would be shocked if we didn't sign a veteran QB

[SorthNarolina]

when was the last time it worked for a team that was in our current situation?

seriously think of an example of a team that had a horrible QB situation with a new head coach rebuild quickly by signing a vet at the same time as drafting a QB (in any round), sat that QB for two years while they made the playoffs with the vet they signed, and then enjoyed consistent success when their rookie QB was "groomed" enough to play up to an acceptable standard.

i think that's being overly specific. The argument should be whether to sit a rookie or throw him directly in the fire. There have been successful QB's from both backgrounds.

A physical talent like Newton I would probably want to sit for a while unless the vet was just plain useless.

[TheRealDeal]

The point is simple and kind of dumb. we get it.

This.

[CarolinaCatBrigade]

- Hype Cam Newton

- Trade Down

- Draft BPA

- Sign Vet QB

As unsure as I am with the QB situation, the jury is still out on Clausen. Hell, it took Troy Aikmen 3 years to finally "get it". If you are juding a rookie QB based off of the players around him (3 rookie WR's/Aging Steve Smith), O-Line plagued with injuries, horrendous coaching staff, and Double Trouble's injury proned season. Then you people are a group of bandwagon idiots. I'm all for a franchise QB, but none of the QB's in this draft are even worth serious consideration.

[Razzy]

The Cardinals almost did it with Kurt. Matt Leinart just didn't pan out.

I don't understand the hate for FA QBs. Do you really think a QB in this draft or on the roster could do better than a decent proven FA? I understand the team philosophy is to build and not try to "win now", but our QB play last season was terrible. I would understand not making the 1-2 year move for a vet FA if we had decent QB play, but the money is worth it for a backup alone.