Originally Posted by
Mojouw
Say you can hoodwink the Browns into trading you the #1 overall for Bell and the #27. You have to take a QB there. Everything else is just details. If you can get your QB succession plan squared away, in my mind there is no discussion.
I know that everyone is now convinced that you don't need a QB to win because of Bortles, Foles, and Keenum. Absolute bullshit. The Jags lost the AFC Championship game because Bortles didn't make a play down the field the entire second half and Brady did. The Jags had a suffocating defense, an amazing run game, good coaching, and still came up short because their QB play was almost non-existent. Keenum lost because he ran out of whatever Cinderella fairy dust magic his season was built on and went from providing well above league average play to what, average to below average in the playoffs? The Chiefs just traded Alex Smith because they are tired of mediocre QB playoff come the playoffs. But...but...Foles...what about big dick Nick? Put your hand down you Wawa swilling cheesesteak smeared Iggles fan. Somehow, Foles conjured up a small game run of elite QB play to bring home a championship. Ask the Ravens and Flacco about repeating a great playoff run. Kinda like in hockey when some journeyman goalie stands on his head and steals a series then everyone wonders why the team isn't any good the next season. Regression to the mean my friends, it is a cruel mistress that comes for us all.
Oh, but, Mojouw, the Steelers lost in the first round - again. So what good is a QB without (whatever reason you prefer for losing)? Well, a QB still gets you a chance to lose in the playoffs every year. Without one you get to "Jeff Fisher" this sum' bitch each year - go 8-8 or 9-7 and mumble something about playing harder next year. Screw that. If I have a top 10 Qb, my team goes 8-8 without even trying. 10-6 with a few complementary pieces that don't drool into their facemasks and 12-4 or better with any actual players to help the QB. Yeah, I'll take the Qb and the box of random puzzle pieces. You take the elite pass rusher and the breathtaking DB. Sounds great right? Well now pair them with Ryan Tannehill - for 6 years. I get Aaron Rodgers. I bet you I hold more parades than you do.
Chiefs and Seahawks field some of the finest safeties in the game. QB play has been the limiting factor in KC and the Seahawks started holding parades once Russell Wilson got handed the offense (a bit of an overplay, but let's not ruin a good rant). Trading Bell and a first round pick and then not taking the QB would be the most short-sighted move since the Herschel Walker or Ricky Williams trades. Broncos, Raiders, Texans, and Cowboys field some of the most ferocious individual pass rushers in the league. They aren't winning diddly squat without better QB play.
To top it all off, you can't even trade Bell anyways because the NFL (for some unknown reason) doesn't do NBA style sign and trades. Additionally, Barkley just put up arguably the best combine ever. Seriously, it may be the best all around performance ever put on by a draft prospect. So unless he gets just torn apart in some sort of zombie uprising, why would the Brown agree to pay L Bell 15 million dollars when they have a potentially better player for 1/3 of that plus Bell only has 3.4 million carries on the odometer...
Look think of it another way. Buddy Ryan and the Reggie White era Eagles fielded some of the most breathtaking defenses I've ever seen. I mean prior to Jerome Brown's passing, I don't think that DLine was blockable by anyone. But Reggie White didn't win meaningful NFL games until he got out of Philly and paired up with Favre in Green Bay. And Reggie White has gotta be one of the baddest dudes to ever play defense in the NFL.