Quote:
Originally Posted by GrantDawg
In was a bad move no matter how you color it, unless they somehow win the Super Bowl in the next two years. That wasn't that likely to begin with, but this made it even less likely.
|
The Chiefs were coming off the third best record in the NFL and could have grabbed Marshawn Lattimore when they were in desperate need of a cornerback. Instead, they chose a developmental QB. Was picking Mahomes there a bad move? They didn't win the Super Bowl in either of the next two seasons and picking Mahomes over someone that could have helped right away certainly negatively impacted their immediate chances.
Let's be honest, the Falcons weren't going to be winning the Super Bowl the next two seasons even if they picked another player there. If Kirk Cousins were to win the Super Bowl, he would be the oldest starting QB to do it in the past 50 years not named Brady, Manning (who was awful that year) or Elway.
So if they are absolutely in love with a player and think they've found their franchise quarterback for the next 10 years, do they:
a. Despite having just signed a 36-year-old starting QB coming off Achilles surgery to a big money deal for the next two years, still pick who they believe is their future franchise QB and let him sit and learn for a year or two; or
b. Pass on the guy and then just pray that they find a guy who they fall equally in love with next year (a class that is supposed to be thin on elite QB talent), while (ideally for them) drafting in the mid-20's?
Also, what suggests the Falcons are "all in"? Just because they signed the highest profile FA QB for the next 2 years? Was this a Super Bowl team last year if only they had a better quarterback? Did they make any other signings indicating they are "all in"?
Basically, there should be two types of teams in the NFL. Those with their long-term franchise QB and those looking to find their long term franchise QB. If you are the latter and think you've found him, then you absolutely have to pick him.