Alternatively, can't you say that this season was a gut reaction to a disproportionate amount of success from rookie QBs last season? Notably Newton and Dalton. And Dalton actually regressed as the season went on.

Let's say that Weeden, Tannehill and even RGIII struggle a little this year. Or that Dalton backslides a little. What if Ponder doesn't progress and Locker can't claim the starters job? Hell, what if Bradford flames out again and they finally shovel dirt on Sanchez? Will the attitude towards moderately talented QBs change a little? Guys like Luck and Stafford will still fly off the board, but the Tannehills? (I.E. Bray or Smith next season?)

It's possible that Newton being an extreme outlier really changed the attitudes of the draft this year. Moreover, there's an excellent chance that the teams at the top of the draft next season aren't going to be going in hard at QB again because they've already made large investments in the position.

I'm not willing to declare a seismic shift in attitudes just yet. Oh we're getting closer, don't get me wrong. But it's really being fueled by maybe 3 or 4 data points (Newton, Dalton, Stafford, Bradford). But ultimately a lot of other data points are getting incompletes at best right now. If the Lockers, Ponders, Daltons, Gabberts, Weeden's and Tannehill's of the world flame out, I think you're going to see teams start to dial it back a little on all but the absolutely premier QB prospects.

And I don't see how you can argue that there's not a very good chance that most of the names on that list don't amount to much more than a glorified Matt Cassel.

Maybe, but I think it has more to do with drafting a guy and knowing you don't have to invest $60 million without proven results. The negative risk cost went down while the upside remained unchanged.

Pretty much how I'm seeing it, and the myth that missing on a guy will "set the franchise back (insert number) of years" has been disproved, though it's still trumpeted at times on this board.

Eh, if they mis-fire on Poe they're set back exactly one season; till the next guy shows up. It's the same with any bad first rounder under the new system, regardless of position (provided that the staff is secure enough in their job status to cut bait).

However - if you do take the gamble that the Redskins just took - that argument has legs again.

I had no problem with rolling the dice on Tannehill because if he busts, who gives a rip? Try again. He's not less likely to bust than Poe and in a far more critical position.

But man, you fellas are saying that there's virtually no cost too great to gamble on a guy and I just don't see it. Giving up 3 firsts and 2 seconds for RGIII presents great risk and if it doesn't pan out, you've really put your team in a bind for a very long time.

Maybe the risk is worth taking, but don't act like it's not there or attempt to understate it.

In listening to Cousins talk during interviews over the past couple of weeks I've really gotten to liking him. Smart, leader, aggressive. Would have liked to see Denver take him instead of Osweiler.

100% agree.

I'm not saying that, and I'm not entirely agreeing with the notion that RGIII was a "steal"; it was highly unusual for that level of prospect at that position to be available, though.

The myth that missing on a QB cripples a franchise is dead. Unequivocally put to rest, as we've seen Carolina and even Denver burn picks on first rounders and get right back on the horse, even if that horse is a broke-neck.

It's never been easier, cheaper, and more necessary to draft a QB, but the Chiefs are still looking for the next DMC and squeezing line talent out of Conference USA.

Tebow