A Case Against Taking a QB in the Top 10

This year's draft has sparked debate on the way to build a team. Do the Rams take Sam Bradford and build the team around him? Or do they take Ndamukong Suh, the best player on the board? 

There are a couple of problems with taking a quarterback in the top 10. The first outcome is that the QB is a failure. This sets your franchise back at least five years because even if he fails at first, you need to give him time to make sure that he is a bust. The 49ers are dealing with this right now with Alex Smith. Five years from the initial draft, it is time to start over.

In the second scenario, your QB has success. In this case, you already paid the QB a lot of money and by the time he is ready to lead a championship team, you have to pay him an enormous salary. This ends in the team having to pay role players to surround the QB instead of established stars. 

Take the Indianapolis Colts. They had the money to pay Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, and a couple of defensive stars. The rest of the offensive roster is filled with Austin Collie and Pierre Garcons. This may not be bad but it could be better.

The opposite example is the New England Patriots. They found a QB in a later round and even when it was time for his big contact, he was willing to take a lower salary to help the team because he was accustomed to making less money.

Do not take this as a put-down against the Peyton Mannings of the world. He earned his money and no one should ask him to take a pay cut. It is just the nature of the game that players are looking for a pay raise in their second contact. If your team leader started with a mild contract, he may not look for as big of a follow up contract.

If I were the Rams, I would take the best player on the board (Suh), sign a veteran QB (Jeff Garcia?), and draft a QB in the second or third round. This seems to be the formula for long term success.