This is silly. Out of those top quarterbacks you mentioned, how many were drafted in the top 10 picks of the draft?
Tom Brady? Aaron Rodgers? Drew Brees? Russell Wilson?
If you have no team around your quarterback, your quarterback will never develop and get the help he needs. He'll be chased off the football team. Even Brady has below his average years when he doesn't have as much talent around him. What good is your QB if you have nothing around him?
No player is every worth the amount of picks it costs to trade up that far. Look what happened to the Falcons after they traded their picks away for Julio. They have Julio and no one else.
Or imagine if the Browns had actually used the picks they received for trading down wisely... All those extra first rounders and talent they could've had.
Look at what the Cowboys did with the picks they got for their famous trade.
First, I'm not saying that the only good QBs are in the top 10 picks in the draft; I am placing a higher value on the quarterback position than any other positions, because the reward is so much greater than hitting there than anywhere else. And I'm pointing out that teams give up picks to move up all the time; I believe the only time you should give up picks to move up is for a quarterback because the reward can outweigh the cost.The Patriots are still using second and third round picks on the position despite having Brady because they realize the value of QBs, even as backups.
Sure, there are certainly examples of QBs succeeding with a lower fanfare, drafted in the later rounds. Doesn't change the fact that you'd rather pick 1st than 199th, because more top picks will succeed than sixth rounders, even if there are examples of the the opposite has happened. I believe in trading down, but I believe more strongly in finding the right quarterback. That said, if we are to go with the "more picks" philosophy, I think the Browns would also be smart to pickup a handful of QBs in the mid to late rounds and just hope one of them is really good. Either way, I am saying that a quarterback intrinsically has much more value than any other position, and it isn't even close. If you don't have a franchise QB, get one at all costs and then worry about building the rest later. You can't win without a great QB. You can win with a great QB and below average supporting cast, and franchise QBs these days pretty much all play for over 10 years, so there's going to be time to build a supporting cast.
No player is every worth the amount of picks it costs to trade up that far.
I'm sorry, but do you really believe that no player is worth two first round draft picks? Again, I am a strong believer in trading down in general, but this statement is kind of ridiculous. We are talking about your first round pick this year and next year in exchange for the other team's first round pick this year. That is a net loss of one first round pick. You wouldn't have given up one extra first round pick for Andrew Luck? Calvin Johnson? It's a steep price, yes, but sometimes it is worth trading up, particularly for a top pick. The Redskins had to give up a TON more picks that this to get RGIII, and you know what? Had Shannahan not ruined his knee during his rookie year, he would have been well, well worth it and the Redskins might be Super Bowl contenders now. I'm guessing had they not drafted him to begin with and kept the picks, they'd be cruising along winning 6 games a season now instead of 5. A risk that probably won't pan out, but one I would take again with a similar player coming out of school as RGIII.
By the way, the reason why the Patriots typically trade down is because at the end of the first round, they have just reached the end of the top tier of players and now see the next 15-20 players as having similar grades. Many would see Winston and Mariota as the very top tier of players in this draft, and then a second tier that lasts roughly until pick 20. The Browns may very well see it that way.
