Um.. it really depends.. I don't think there's any single position more important than QB in the NFL. If you have a Peyton Manning, you can pencil yourself in the playoffs and having 10 wins for a decade or so.. You obviously need things around a great QB, but a great QB can cover up other weaknesses on a team unlike any other position. Typically, most teams drafting in the bottom five do not have a franchise QB...


However, because of how much money a top five QB can cost a team to draft, a team that is rebuilding might be better off drafting a left tackle or defensive end in that costs less, and spending the saved cap space on other team needs. .I certainly can see the resource management argument. But, In terms of acutal need ( and need here is defined the amount your team will improve by adding a great player at X position) , a QB is usually the number 1 need of a bottom 5 team. As a rule of thumb, if you're a bottom 5 team, you probably wouldn't be if Peyton Manning was your Quarterback.

Yeah.. it's kind of a dumb question because it's so subjective.

I'm a pretty big proponent of building a team on the lines and working your way outward. Tom Brady looks like trash behind a terrible O-Line. I also think a lot of times teams reach for a QB just because they need one, not because the QB is going to be a solid starter for 5-10 years for them, then they get saddled with having to try and make it work for a few years as well as the monster contract.

Absolutely.. but the reason they reach is because having a franchise QB is so important. A lot of teams will make mistakes.. but if you get, say, a Big Ben, your team can win the superbowl despite having one of the worst offensive lines in the NFL.

And again, if the NFL ever gets another collective bargaining agreement, you can be damn sure the NFL owners are going to insist on caps that rookie's (particularly QB's) make.

I get that.. I just figure that maybe NFL fans are sophisticated enough nowadays to understand that setting yourself up at LT for 10 years is more important than gambling on a marginal/risky QB prospect, regardless of how big the name is.

I get that.. I just figure that maybe NFL fans are sophisticated enough nowadays to understand that setting yourself up at LT for 10 years is more important than gambling on a marginal/risky QB prospect, regardless of how big the name is.

Robert Gallery was another horrible Raiders pick. 2nd overall and Larry Fitzgerald went 3, Rivers 4th, Sean Taylor 5th. Ben Rothlisberger went 13th. The year Alex Smith went #1 the whole first round sucked. Ware and Merriman were the only real stand outs

Robery Gallery is the best offensive lineman the Raiders have--which might not be saying much. He also played for how many Offensive Line/Offensive Coordinators and played how many positions in how many years? Guy's had the deck stacked against him the whole time.

He was horible at LT

Oh..okay.

Anytime you take an OT 2nd overall in a draft that deep and they arent a perenial pro bowler I think thats gotta be concidered a major bust.

Robery Gallery is the best offensive lineman the Raiders have--which might not be saying much. He also played for how many Offensive Line/Offensive Coordinators and played how many positions in how many years? Guy's had the deck stacked against him the whole time.

I don't know who is right or who is wrong, I'm guessing my original point was wrong. I'm wrong a lot.

Yeah, he's good now that they moved him to guard.. but you don't take an offensive guard with the second over all pick.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

good thing Ochocinco didn't get a TD. If he got one and jumped in the black hole he woulda got cut.

this just in: lincecum to become raiders QB

couldnt hurt. though I think id rather Randy Johnson be my QB, he looks like he might punch someone if they tried to blitz him.

but isnt he a san fran guy? is that your wtf?