Originally Posted by SNR
No, I'm saying the exact opposite.
Let's say you're Gene Smith. You know you're a shitty GM, but really want to keep your job. You have two options:
1) Draft a QB. A delicate process, but one that will keep you in business for years if it works out. A great QB = wins = a job. However, if the QB busts, the shitty job you've done with the team will be exposed and you'll get fired
2) Don't draft a QB. In spite of your shitty record with ALL first rounders, this might have a higher chance of generating a positive contributor to your football team in a QB year like 2011. However, even if your player hits, there's still the issue of the vacancy at QB as well as all the bullshit around that vacant QB you drafted before. You can draft this one guy and he can hit, but you need to do that AT LEAST ten more times before your team starts to play well and you get to keep your job.
So which one would you choose, Gene Smith? If I were that guy, I'd pick option #1. Hit on that QB and your job is gold. Whereas in #2, you can hit on that pick but your job is still in danger.
I understand what you're saying but I also believe that Gene Smith is a rare circumstance because he had years to draft, develop or trade for a QB but it wasn't until his job was in jeopardy that he actually made the move.
So essentially, he drafted Gabbert out of fear instead of drafting him because he felt he was a franchise QB.