[Arles]

Question for you guys. When the did the goal change from:

"I'd love to have an above average QB every year"
to
"I'd love to have a talented, inexperience QB on a rookie deal!"

Look at the Bears (Mitch), Browns (Baker), Jets (Darnold), Bills (Allen), Bucs (Jameis), Titans (Mariota), Ravens (Carr), Redskins (Haskins) and Broncos (Lynch) - all those teams had the great advantage of building their roster around a rookie QB. But, guess what, they all stunk. Even the better situations in guys like Watson, Dak and Goff - they still weren't ready in their early big games and cost their team when they first played (because they were still raw). I get the value in a situation like Mahomes, Lamar or Wilson when he was drafted, but that's like banking on getting Tom Brady in the 6th round - those guys aren't normal. Plus, all these teams had high priced guys when they drafted in Smith, Flacco and Matt Flynn. So, it's not like they saved a ton at first.

It just seems to me that it is better try to get your starter when you current good QB still has a few years left than to panic and draft the best rookie you can find once he is done. I know you lose the "cheap rookie contract", but isn't it better to have a higher chance at a good QB? By handpicking the guy you want when you don't need him and letting him groom for 1-2 years, you set yourself up for a much better chance at a future good QB than drafting Dwayne Haskins, Paxton Lynch or Josh Rosen once your main guy is gone because they are the best for that moment.