Why It Does Not Make Sense To Pick Back-To-Back 1St Round Qb's

[ReMeDy]

This is a topic to elaborate to Andrew Luck advocates why the Panthers, Jaguars, Vikings, and Titans will NOT pick Andrew Luck if any of them picks 1st overall (ie. they will trade the pick, or draft someone else). All these teams picked QB's in the 1st round with expectations to groom them as starters; however, Luck advocates claim he is so immensely talented, the teams will pick him anyways! There are a number of reasons why this logic is flawed:

1.) Money/Trade Value:

Let's use Cam Newton as an example. Newton was given a four-year $22 million contract. Does anyone honestly believe Carolina would pick Luck and have Newton ride the bench, or vice versa? This does not make sense from a business perspective. For the organization, this means conceding defeat in last year's draft, because they would be picking a position to overwrite last year's 1st round pick. Furthermore, you can not easily trade Newton, because he is being payed a 1st round salary and has already been conditioned to play for an existing NFL team. For example, this is why the Redskins gave up Jason Campbell for cheap, because as a QB, the more offenses you play under, the less successful you are due to learning inconsistencies. This is why we see Oakland's QBs suffer while Peyton Manning has flourished. By trading away a former first round QB (ex. Newton), teams will have to then evaluate what Carolina has taught him. This is baggage teams do not want to contend with. Newton, in his current state, is worth no more than a 3rd round pick, at best. Carolina would be conceding defeat in last year's draft if they traded Newton for a 3rd rounder. The exception is if Newton plays exceptionally his rookie season, and teams take a chance on trading a 1st rounder for him, but then that raises a question for Carolina: Why would would you trade him after such a grand performance and undergo the risk of an entirely new QB!?!

2.) Difficult evaluation of QB's in rookie seasons:

Let's assume the four QB's (Newton, Locker, etc.) play a poor season - very likely for rookies. This does not mean they are busts and deserved to be traded or released, especially coming off a lockout! Peyton Manning - in his rookie season - averaged a paltry 71.2 rating, 26 TD, 28 INT, and 56.7% completion. By all accounts, if one of the four teams were to pick Luck anyways, it would be the very definition of an organization freaking out over just one rookie season. This is unfair to Newton, Locker, etc.

3.) QB Controversy:

The NFL is a big transition for rookie QB's. Now imagine a rookie QB (Luck) entering a divided locker room with a divided fan-base with a 1st round QB picked from last season. While it's easy to favor Luck over, say, Newton, there is no doubt this controversy will cause an unneeded distraction for young QB's (and their locker-mates!). When an organization picks a first round QB, the organization should embrace the QB with open arms and unquestionably signal strong devotion to him. It's fine to have a 1st round QB on the bench his first season in favor of a veteran, but do not bench him behind a young 1st round draft pick! What message are you sending to both QB's!?!

4.) Playbooks & Play-Styles:

There are various play-styles of QB's - especially out of college - so as a coach, how do you divide your time and effort to accommodate all your QB's? Answer: You give them one system and playbook. For example, this is why the Eagles brought in Vince Young, due to his similar skill-set to Michael Vick. In Newton's case, the two are very different players. Luck might be fast, but he's not Newton. Furthermore, one of them may understand concepts better or faster than the other. The Panthers would hate to rework the play-book, due to Luck, when they already have 1st round established talent in Newton.

----

The Panthers, Jaguars, Vikings, and Titans would be wise to trade the pick. There will be a bidding war for Andrew Luck, unless something "dramatic" happens to convince teams otherwise. Furthermore, as the 1st overall pick, teams will have plenty of time to make phone calls, study film, and evaluate Luck, further enhancing his pedigree in an already hungry-QB driven market. Luck will be a great QB, but why would any of the four teams take a chance on drafting another QB in back-to-back drafts if they do not really need one? By trading the pick, you improve yourself in many other areas for potentially years to come. If you trade the pick for, say, two 1st rounders (if not more), you are looking at the possibility of a "Dwight Freeney" and "Reggie Wayne" on your team, AND save money! However, if either of the four teams do pick Luck, they will have a huge situation on their hands, and a significant cap hit riding a bench.

Why should Colts fans care about this topic?: Because if one of the four teams, for better or worse, is 1st overall, the Colts will have a shot at him, even if the trade value is outrageously high.

[Steagles]

Well, Luck is supposted to be Manning 2.0, so I wouldn't doubt it if one of those teams goes and gets him at #1.

[Balzer40]

Well, we have already had this discussion in another thread but im still going to disagree. Virtually every single analyst, expert, GM, and owner believe that Luck is without a doubt the only QB since Manning to become the next Manning. This is a QB driven league and GM's have been searching for the next Manning for the last 14 yrs. and the consensus is that Luck is that guy.

You use money as a reason why Carolina wouldn't draft Luck, but you have to remember that the 22 mil. their paying Newton is peanuts compared to the old 1st overall pick standards. It would be extremely easy to trade Newton(espesially if he has a good yr.) because the money he is making is nothing. You're only talking 5.5 mil. a yr.,thats nothing.

I know you are stuck in your beliefs and thats cool and all, but im telling ya, if I had a million dollars to bet, I would bet every single penny of it, that any of the teams you listed would draft Luck and dump their QB's in a second flat.