I know we've been batting this specific topic about for months and agree that there are huge benefits to investing quality draft picks at the backup spot.Mothman wrote: Bingo. I obviously agree and since a glorious example of how investing a mid-round pick in a QB can pay off just started in back-to-back Super Bowls, it's amazing that there's ever debate about this at all.
It's the most important position in sports. It's hard to believe a wise investment in the position could ever be a poor choice.
I finally looked at some of the draft histories for teams with quality starters last night and there is a trend. Certain teams like the Pats, Pack, Steelers... to name a few, draft QBs as high as the 3rd rd on a regular basis. The superbowl champs just picked a guy in the 2nd round last season and Brady still looks like he can go 3-4 more years. A team on the cusp of the superbowl used their first draft pick on a backup QB!
Conversely, teams like the Colts, Saints and Chargers have picked about a total 7 of QBs between them since they aquired their respectivefranchise QB (Manning, Brees,Rivers). That is a lot of drafts! Charlie Whitehurst might be the only guy you'd heard of if Curtis Painter didn't have to play a full season. I think the 5th rd was the highest any of them had been picked.
I only looked at those 6 teams.
If I had a playoff team and I had to choose between Chad Greenway playing the whole year at MLB and Garrapolo(as an example) as my backup QB vs a rookie 1st rounder at MLB and (insert NFL journeyman QB here)...I think I'd take the first option.
Maybe not the best analogy but the point being that having a legit scrub as your backup QB is a significant hole on the roster and deserves the same kind of attention that any other position merits, probably more, when looking at the draft.