- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 31,025
- Reaction score
- 15,586
The question is: to QB at 3 or not QB? There are pros and cons to both.
QB at 3
Pro: Higher odds, in general, of finding their QB of the future. Shiny new QB would excite fans and Kraft, and they're guaranteed to have one of the top 3 available.
Con: Less draft capital available to put talent around him. Depending on how FA goes, it may be risky to have him start right away. More guaranteed money tied up in one player, so cutting bait is harder.
Not QB at 3
Pro: Can take an expected generational WR at 3 or trade down for more/future picks. More draft capital to build talent. Use short-term bridge QB to weather the bumps.
Con: Less exciting for fans (esp. if they take a tackle) and Kraft, likely raising pressure on FO down the line. Lower chance of finding a QB of the future in later rounds. Pats are unlikely to have pick 3 again anytime soon, so trading up for a top QB would be more expensive in future.
QB at 3
Pro: Higher odds, in general, of finding their QB of the future. Shiny new QB would excite fans and Kraft, and they're guaranteed to have one of the top 3 available.
Con: Less draft capital available to put talent around him. Depending on how FA goes, it may be risky to have him start right away. More guaranteed money tied up in one player, so cutting bait is harder.
Not QB at 3
Pro: Can take an expected generational WR at 3 or trade down for more/future picks. More draft capital to build talent. Use short-term bridge QB to weather the bumps.
Con: Less exciting for fans (esp. if they take a tackle) and Kraft, likely raising pressure on FO down the line. Lower chance of finding a QB of the future in later rounds. Pats are unlikely to have pick 3 again anytime soon, so trading up for a top QB would be more expensive in future.