One Less QB

[bsmooth]

Landry Jones announced he is returning for senior season. Draft is getting worse and worse for QB's.

[Landshark]

And what looked like a QB class to rival 1983 and 2004 has thinned out drastically. 

Pencil in Jones and Matt Barkley as the front runners for the Heisman next year.

[Pappy13]

Miami must look a whole lot worse than I thought. No one want's to play for them.

Peyton! Peyton! Peyton!

[Guru-In-Vegas]

I don't understand their reasoning.  Had this been pre-CBA times then it would be obvious as to why they are waiting but considering there's only so much the rookie wage cap permits teams to spend now, what the hell does it matter when you are drafted? 

I hope USC loses every game next year BTW, eat a D**K Barkley. 

[Spider-Dan]

I don't understand their reasoning.  Had this been pre-CBA times then it would be obvious as to why they are waiting but considering there's only so much the rookie wage cap permits teams to spend now, what the hell does it matter when you are drafted? 

Even under the rookie wage cap, you'll make more money the higher you are drafted.

Barkley would be, at best, the 3rd QB off the board this year (probably no higher than #6 to WSH).  If he waits until next year, he has a good chance of going #1 overall.
Jones would be a late first-round pick if he came out this year.  By waiting until next year, he would jump up to early/mid first-round based solely on Luck and RG3 being gone, and (with a good season from OU) might be able to jump into the top 3.

It's a smart move on the part of both of them.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Miami must look a whole lot worse than I thought. No one want's to play for them.

Peyton! Peyton! Peyton!

I don't think top ranked college QBs fear being drafted by Miami, I think they fear being drafted by Indy.

Typically a top 10 draft pick doesn't have to worry he might sit on the bench for 3-4 years, get drafted as Peyton insurance and you might, or you might start week 1. 

[Phishfan]

I don't see Indy keeping both Peyton and a #1 rookie QB. The financial ramifications of putting all that money up an one position will deplete that sorry team even more. I think it has to be one or the other for Indy.

[EKnight]

Take what you will from it, but I'm hearing a lot of people in Indy are getting higher on RG3 and lower on Luck anyway. -EK

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I don't see Indy keeping both Peyton and a #1 rookie QB. The financial ramifications of putting all that money up an one position will deplete that sorry team even more. I think it has to be one or the other for Indy.

I don't think it would be a smart move.  But even so, if I was a QB in this year's draft, I would not want to be drafted by Indy, where: either 1) I will sit behind Manning or 2) be compared to Manning.  Maimi on the other hand the worst that could happen is having fans saying the team should have stuck with Moore.

[Pappy13]

I don't think it would be a smart move.  But even so, if I was a QB in this year's draft, I would not want to be drafted by Indy, where: either 1) I will sit behind Manning or 2) be compared to Manning.  Maimi on the other hand the worst that could happen is having fans saying the team should have stuck with Moore.

On the other hand, if I'm a rookie and can't beat out the starter, it's a LOT easier to swallow for you and the fans if you are behind Peyton Manning as opposed to being behind Moore.

I don't really buy into the whole idea that if you draft a QB in the 1st round he has to play. If I'm the coach, I'm playing whomever I feel gives me the best shot to win regardless of when or where he was drafted.

That of course would change if you're not winning. The longer you keep a veteran in that isn't winning the more pressure you're gonna get to start the rookie, but you should be able to safely start the season with the rookie on the bench.

[Landshark]

I don't really buy into the whole idea that if you draft a QB in the 1st round he has to play. If I'm the coach, I'm playing whomever I feel gives me the best shot to win regardless of when or where he was drafted.

Not so much the entire first round.  But if you draft a QB in the top five and are paying him top five money, you need to play him immediately.  Rodgers may have sat for three seasons, but he wasn't picked until late in the first round.

[Guru-In-Vegas]

Even under the rookie wage cap, you'll make more money the higher you are drafted.

Yeah, I assume that.  However, I can't imagine it would VASTLY differ from the first QB taken to the fourth.  I don't think risking injury or a having really crappy year in college would be worth making an extra 5 million over the course of 4 years.  But then again, what do I know?  I'm sure pride, and school spirit or whatever the hell else is the REAL motive, right?  It's never about the money! 

[bsmooth]

What does this make Luck and RGIII worth now for trading?

[Spider-Dan]

Yeah, I assume that.  However, I can't imagine it would VASTLY differ from the first QB taken to the fourth.

It's not just that, either.

If you are drafted top 5, you get a long leash because the team has a huge investment in you.  If you are drafted at the bottom of the first?  You have much less slack before they start talking about replacing you.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I don't really buy into the whole idea that if you draft a QB in the 1st round he has to play. If I'm the coach, I'm playing whomever I feel gives me the best shot to win regardless of when or where he was drafted.

I agree, in principle.  If you draft a player thinking he is good and you realize in camp he isn't as good as he thought, you don't use him.

But if you draft a player in the top 10 spots in April and he doesn't play in Sept you are forced to eat a lot of crow.  That is why the Jets kept Gholston for so long despite being crap. 

There only two teams in the NFL will enough balls to not play a top 10 pick -- New England Patriots and the Pittsburg Steelers.  I doubt whoever your next year rookie head coach is will add the Dolphins to that list.