The owners are proposing a rookie cap due to the excessive contracts which have to be written for Top Five-Ten selections, contracts in the rest of round one don't appear to have drawn owner ire in media reports on the subject. Making that amendment to your premise, I reject the proposal that a rookie cap will substantially alter the price tag for picks 30-33 (where NE will be picking given current standings).
The next question is to ask if the price of a QB in that draft range meets with available talent? You propose Locker, fair enough, your argument is he's only slipped a round in value from preseason projections. I saw a mock draft last night from a fairly astute observer of the draft which projected Locker to Washington with their first round pick, a Top fifteen selection. You clearly have one draftnik who concurs with you as to Locker's draft value. He also had four other Quarterbacks selected before Locker, a total of five in the Top fifteen in his mock - once the underclassmen declare it just may be that Locker (in this valuation) is pushed down to the end of the first round. I accept your valuation of Locker as a working premise.
Using your premise of an unexpected selection, I look to NE drafting history under BB to see if there is any indicator that he might jump your way.
-- Mankins? A surprise to many, and not a second pick, but within the selection range we are using. Yet, he replaced a departing starter.
-- McCourty? Also a surprise to many, he also replaced a departing starter too (even if we didn't see it at the time).
-- Watson? He more closely fits your profile of a second high pick used on a replacement to be groomed. Ignoring the controversy surrounding Ben's career here, his addition looks in hindsight very similar to the 2010 draft class and the current offensive strategic picture (Graham, Fauria, & Watson compared to Crumpler, Gronkowski, and Hernandez).
-- Wilfork? He replaced a starter too.
-- O'Connell? He was a third, but a second pick in the round and a raw QB to boot, very similar to your theory.
It seems BB does have an eccentric enough drafting history to support your premise.
How might his economics background affect your proposal?
-- Young QB to groom, heir to an empire. Ecomonically speaking the idea of training a Crown Prince makes good sense.
-- Price tag for a Crown Prince as compared to upgrades/repairs to the castle wall (OL/DL/OLB)? If the current castle wall is still adequate to the task, your premise isn't too unreasonable, if there are holes to fill (Deadrick suspended, Neal retired, Mankins and/or Light departed, Gerard Warren lured away) your premise looses urgency. How about an upgrade/replacement for other needs of your empire? Border security, highway safety, etc.? Are your RB, CB, S, ILB, WR, TE adequate to the task? Would they be better for an upgrade or would QB?
-- Frugality? Now this one pinches those pennies you are proposing to spend. Frugality would argue, as other critics of your plan suggest, that 30-33 is better spent on upgrading another position with a more immediate return on investment. You might argue this is more greed than frugality, but I would suggest your proposal could be argued as more greed than frugality too.
-- Trade? Before mocking Locker to NE in the 30-33 range, we might want to consider the trade potential; those teams picking 34-45 are QB needy teams who would be very interested in Locker and willing to trade up into the first round to get him for five years vice four. I offer a counter proposal to you for a trade back with one those teams ... do you still want Locker who will likely languish on the scout team for the length of his contract?
I conclude your premise has precedent and Locker is a reasonable projection; yet between the immediate value to the team of another brick in the wall or upgraded border security I have doubts as to the economy of your proposal. You propose a late first for a raw, mobile QB with all the physical tools, I propose a raw Day Three QB with all the physical tools:
-- Colin Kaepernick, Nevada, Rd 4 projection, 6-6/225
-- T.J. Yates, North Carolina, Rd 7, 6-3/220
-- Scott Tolzien, Wisconsin, Rd 7-FA, 6-2/208
-- Adam Weber, Minnesota, FA, 6-1/221
-- Ben Chappell, Indiana, FA, 6-2/242
-- Adam Froman, Louisville FA, 6-4/220
-- Justin Burke, Louisville, FA, 6-3/229
If you are looking to develop a future starter, and your time frame is based on Brady's expected career which gives you a four to five year window of opportunity, I'm less inclined to spend a late first for Jake Locker when I could get an Adam Froman or Justin Burke, or both for free agency prices. After observing this college season, I'd give Froman or Burke a shot to develop behind Brady before I'd offer it to Locker. Call me frugi- ... okay, cheap.
p.s. The college QB whom I consider the most Brady-like: Kellen Moore, Boise State, who is currently projected to Day Three in 2012 due to his height and laser rocket arm shortfall.