NFL Draft Round 1: Why Would the Lions, or Anyone Else, Pick a QB?

After reading through the latest round of mock drafts and trying to figure out why some guys are still free agents, there was one question still lingering.

Does any team in the NFL really need to draft a quarterback in the first round this year?

At first glance, the answer seems obvious, but after going back and reading through some of the aforementioned articles around the 'Net, the answer gets muddled.  The answer also stems from other questions…

Who will the Lions pick at No. 1?

Curry, Stafford, and Sanchez are possible picks, some even speculate that they will grab an OT. Given Jim Schwartz's penchant for defense and the Lions lack of one last year, Curry shoots to the top.

The flipside was their offense, which may have been better if they only had an O-line to give Orlovsky or Culpepper more time to find Calvin Johnson. They got rid of Orlovsky and resigned Culpepper, but that left a definite need to have a franchise QB in the future. But is there one in this year's draft? Is there one that outweighs their other, possibly more pressing, needs on defense and at offensive line?

While the answer is laced with opinion, the argument is there and a case can be made that with two picks in the first round, they can improve the overall team with a beast on defense and a 10-year starter on O-line or even a running back and pick a QB later.

Who needs a QB more than anything else?

Besides the Lions, who else actually needs a quarterback? Arguments can be made for more than a few teams, but do any of the guys in this year's draft fit the profile of a starting NFL quarterback? Moreover, do any of this year's QBs warrant the type of big-money contract that comes with being picked in the first round? 

So who needs a starting QB? The Chiefs did, but fixed that with the Matt Cassell trade. The Jets don't seem to have much confidence in Kellen Clemens, and the 49ers don't have a strong case with Alex Smith. While the discussion could take days and include almost every team, there isn’t a blaring and definite yes coming from anywhere.

Bottom line is, though there are talented QBs in the draft, not many teams need more than a backup or a guy to ride the pine until their starter gets hurt. And they can pick that guy in the later rounds or grab one in free agency after the draft.

Don't blame Stafford or Sanchez

Of course, maybe it isn't about the QBs at all. This year there is an abundance of talent at other positions. This year's draft has excellent offensive tackles, defensive tackles, corners, linebackers, running backs, and arguably the best group of wide receivers in years.

Theoretically, you could have a two-round mock draft that included every position except quarterback and it wouldn't seem to far-fetched. With the obvious success of defensive teams last year, and the realization that you can never have too many talented guys in the trenches, why waste a pick on a QB that you're not sure is "franchise worthy?" Why not take a Crabtree, Moreno, Curry, Unger, Smith, Davis, and the list could go on.

The 2010 Draft

With names like Bradford, McCoy, and Tebow probable for next year, why not wait? It wouldn't be unheard of, or even shameful, for a team like Detroit to trade, cut, beg, borrow, and steal to be first next year and get a shot at one of those guys.

Already, once they, one by one, said they were staying in school, there was a collective "Awwwww Maaan" coming from the NFL and fans. They represent the future of the NFL and they haven’t even declared themselves yet. 

Then again...

Maybe the problem is the words “could be” and “possibly.” With Leinart and Young, considered “sure things” a few years ago, teetering on the "bust" line and the rookie success of Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco, maybe there are too many questions to not take a chance on Stafford, Sanchez, or another guy.

We, the fans, probably won't know until draft day which way teams are going to go, but at this point, it seems that the teams don't know for sure either.