So if I look at those groups I referred to earlier, let's assume the following:

In Group 1, Manning, Rivers, McNabb, and Whiny Manning are franchise QBs. That's a stretch with Rivers and Whiny, but let's give it to them. So 4 of the 14 are franchise QBs, meaning you had a 28 percent chance of success.

In Group 2, Roethlisberger is a franchise QB. 1 in 7 chance, or 14 percent. We'll ignore Cutler and Culpepper to be conserve, though one could make a case that they're equivalent to the whiny Manning.

In Group 3, Rodgers is a franchise QB. 1 in 6 chance, or 17 percent.

In Group 4, Brees is a franchise QB. 1 in 7 chance or 14 percent.

So you take a top 10 pick and you have a 28 percent chance of success.

If you draft a QB from Group 2, Group 3, and 2 from Group 4, the odds of getting a franchise QB are:

1 - [6/7*5/6*6/7*6/7) = 48%

Would you rather have a 48% chance of winning or a 28% chance of winning?

Why not? They should.

Unless there's a salary cap issue, they should absolutely draft QB after QB until they get The Big Gun. If the QB is that important - and we all recognize that he is since the league has screwed up the offense/defense balance so badly - then you get the QB in the most efficient manner possible.

I'd like to see Pioli on the phone non-stop trying to trade up until both Luck and RGIII are off the board. If that doesn't happen, then wait and see if Richardson drops to #10. If he's taken before us, then get back on the phone and talk to multiple teams about different trading down scenarios to acquire Jones or Tannehill and more draft picks to fill other positions of need.

In this draft I'd like to see Pioli address a starter QB, RT, best C or LG available, FS, and ILB

I think so too, but that was the clearly the best option of the three listed in the poll.

FS and ILB for depth purposes?

Snyder will throw his yacht into the bidding war. WHile the Rat has visions of bootlegs

I like where you are going, but you can't do the math like that. It would be a 28% chance vs a 14 or 17% chance. You can't add up the percentages unless you pick a qb in each of those rounds.

We got Cassell and Orton, why the hell are we looking for another qb? We need linemen people.

That's what I'm arguing, though. Instead of taking one high QB by trading those four picks, you have a better chance of getting a franchise QB by taking four QBs with those four picks and letting them duke it out in training camp.

Ahh okay. It makes perfect sense, but no team will ever do that. That would be pretty cool though. We have one fifth rounder, now just draft a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round qb and we will have great odds to be in the superbowl in 3 years.

I'm in

I think teams don't do it because it would be viewed as wasted picks since you'll end up cutting some of them. But big deal. The league screwed up the rules and made QBs into god, so waste the picks until you get a franchise QB and then build around him. Plus, you could probably trade the QBs and get something out of them as you sort through them. People have traded for guys like Rick Mirer and Matt Cassel, so they'll trade for that second-round guy who didn't win the starting job.

I really think that this is a viable outside-the-box strategy.

Good luck trying to develop them. There are only so many snaps someone can take with the first team.

I meant to type SS, rather than FS... McGraw has to go and let the rook fight it out with Washington, Langford, and Lewis (if he can play SS). At ILB, Belcher has shown progression, but Williams and Greenwood haven't impressed me at all. The rook could come in and fight it out with Belcher and at the very least add depth at a position we're extremely thin at talent.

On another position of need, a big 'ol boy with tree stumps for legs needs to be drafted to compete with Powe at NT.

I agree, but you would need two or three years to sort through each crop. Give them all playing experience in their first year in proportion to their initial perceived value. In season 2 you would refine it with more playing time being given to top performers and so on. I don't think any of them would get better just sitting on the bench. I also don't think you can just play a rookie week after week without working on fundamentals. I think that alternating playing time and prolonged periods to work on fundamentals without the pressure of getting ready to play a game would be the way to get the most of out of a prospect. You probably need a couple of good QB coaches too.

NFL teams don't seem to do much to develop and nurture young QB talent.

Good point. Given the argument that QBs learn best on the bench their first couple of years (and giving them proportionate playing time as you suggest), you might even increase the value of some of these players as they learn. You could have an NFL franchise that not only competes, but also runs a side business of grooming and trading QBs outside the conference, which could then be used to draft other positions once that franchise QB is in place.

And yeah, I'd have a legion of QB coaches. They're peanuts in terms of total cost. Rookie QBs would be begging to get drafted by Quarterback University.