Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 9418795)

I'd rather have two young, quality QB's than one. I understand what you mean and you have a valid point...but i guess i don't really care how the QB's are acquired as long as they are acquired. My view might be a little bit different if we only had one 3rd rounder.....but we should have two.

So Nick Foles would essentially be our compensation for losing Carr, and we would STILL have a full slate of draft picks in every round to address other issues. It wouldn't be any different than a team spending the 1st overall on a QB and then using rounds 2-7 to address every other issue (which happens every season).

Spending an early draft pick on what might amount to a back up may not be ideal to you, but it's something i would fully support if that's the direction they want to go in.

Going into camp with two young, promising QB's doesn't sound like a bad plan to me.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9418774)

Exactly.

If they give a 2nd or 3rd for Foles, he's coming here pretty much to start.

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9418836)

Theres no way id give up a #2 for Foles. Hes only started 6 games and hasnt proven anything. At least Cassel had won 10 or 11 games and kept his team in the playoff hunt.

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9418832)

Exactly. Look at the Seahawks. They thought they had their franchise guy and then some rookie steps in and becomes a force...

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9418836)

Theres no way id give up a #2 for Foles. Hes only started 6 games and hasnt proven anything. At least Cassel had won 10 or 11 games and kept his team in the playoff hunt.

Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk (Post 9418847)

I'd swap 1st and 2nd round picks and give up our 3rd for Foles...

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9418832)

Exactly. Look at the Seahawks. They thought they had their franchise guy and then some rookie steps in and becomes a force...

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9418851)

...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rdAv2t0oJx...ious_meme.jpeg

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418824)

It doesn't in a vacuum, but it's all about opportunity cost.

Going into camp with a young, promising starting QB along with a young, promising SS sounds better than having a young, promising starting QB and another backup.

It's about using finite resources to cover several holes. If we could trade the comp pick, I'd be okay with trading that for Foles - but we can't. We'd have to trade 3.1 and because of the depth of the 2nd round, there are going to be same damn good players there at 3.1 Harrison Smith was a first round pick for the Vike's last year and I think Baccari Rambo is a better player than Smith and he'll likely be there for us at 3.1 but not at the comp pick.

This could be a bedrock draft and I want us to be as aggressive as possible in it. Using a high pick on a backup QB is reactive and I don't like it.

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9418832)

Exactly. Look at the Seahawks. They thought they had their franchise guy and then some rookie steps in and becomes a force...

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418854)

Sure, a rookie 3rd rounder.

They dedicated a reasonable FA contract and a 3rd round pick to the position - that's it. And who the hell would complain about that?

That's not what some folks are suggesting. They're suggesting using 2 of our first 3 picks on the position. No, the Seahawks would've never done that.

And frankly, the Seahawks are an outlier. If you're going to cite them as your model, then I guess we need to draft a bunch of 3rd and 4th round QBs, right? They got lucky.