well, talent busts aside, you guys make it sound like we know brady will be on the field another 4 years, and I don't think we can ever know for certain who will be there and who won't.
didn't brady get his chance when bledsoe got knocked out?
why not just roll with a single qb and keep our fingers crossed?
not only do you need depth at every position, but qb in particular is a position that benefits from sitting on the bench a couple years.
I'm not saying we should or shouldn't take qb, or any other position over qb, just that it's not so ridiculous to think that qb could be drafted.
like some guy said in another post, it worked out ok for gb and sf to have a good young qb behind their aging star.
Yes, it did work out for GB and SF
Thing is SF with Montana and Young was before free agency and the salary cap, so we're comparing apples to oranges. The rules are completely different now.
Rodgers in Green Bay was a unique situation. Favre was flip flopping when asked if he would return or retire, and was at an age and point of production that the team was well within its rights and responsibilities to look for another QB.
The draft just happened to fall to a point where Rodgers was still available where nobody expected him to be, and it was the Packers turn to make a pick.
At that point Rodgers not only represented the best value among players for any team, he was even a better value to the Packers because it looked like they would need a new starting QB that year, or at most the following year.
Nobody, especially the Packers, envisioned Rodgers riding the pine for as long as he did.
Bottom line is that the Pats are probably better off drafting a player from any position other than ILB, TE, LS, P and K rather than a QB in the first three rounds. After that a QB is fine, but in my opinion the team is better off not drafting a QB early this year.