[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Fish

Why would busting on a QB be worse than busting on a OL or LB with the first pick? The money isn't going to be any different.

And you're pointing out players taken 5 and 6 years ago to support your notion that non-QBs can be valuable at the top. Doesn't that show you something? Your best examples happened over 5 years ago.

And you can't sit here and say picking the wrong QB at #1 would set us back 2-3 years as opposed to picking another position, and then follow it up with "We have been in this position so many times over the last decade". Why have we been in this position? Because we haven't tried committing to a ****ing QB. Teams who don't have a franchise QB, and don't bother trying, end up in this position frequently. There's an obvious connection there. That's why it's so damn important to try when you have the opportunity. You get it right by taking a chance and using the top pick on the most important position. The position that provides the greatest opportunity for team improvement. Replacing tackles could make one position on the OLine better. Replacing a QB could make the entire offense better. We've seen evidence of this over and over the last few years.

Pussy footing around and hoping the perfect QB falls in your lap unexpectedly has proven much less effective than acquiring the best one in the draft. People have offered up clear evidence of this time and time again. The Chiefs are evidence enough of this. The best way to go from 2-14 to playoffs, is to improve QB play. That's not opinion.