Mason Rudolph at #17

[SDFan]

The Packers managed to go all in on Favre's final seasons while having Rodgers stood on the sidelines waiting for him to call it a day. I don't see why we couldn't do the same if we fell in love with a quarterback and took them at 17. At least we could prepare them and get them ready. It also protects us if Rivers regressed like Peyton. And that's without considering the possibility that the year we need one isn't a weak class (e.g. a few seasons ago EJ Manuel was the first quarterback taken).

Will there be better value than a QB at 17? I'd say so, but it all comes down to how long we think Rivers can play at a high level. I'm sure the Broncos didn't think Payton was going to regress like they did. So having the future guy ready might be worthwhile.

coupla issues here: the Packers GM had a different philosophy on building a TEAM to be successful- remember about a decade ago how everyone used them as a benchmark how to build their own teams? Also, HISTORY, specifically CHARGERS history all the way back to when Alex was in charge. He hated paying for 1st round talent, especially QBs. Made Beathard trade away his #1 picks for magic beans for many years and selection of Leaf just hardened the position.He passed that on to Deano and sons. When was the last time they carried 3 QBs on the roster? When was the last time they kept a "developmental QB" as the backup? When did they ever indicate they intended for Rivers to groom his successor? When did they ever draft a QB prospect since Brees/Rivers with more upside than a Whitehurst or Tolzien? History says they won't get serious about replacing Rivers until they HAVE to- like when he starts missing multiple games to injury and it's clear to management his value as the face of the franchise is about to expire and they can't cling to the hope that "as long as we have Rivers we have a chance to win" to keep selling tickets.

And I think you mis-characterized the gamble Denver took with Manning- the guy was coming off a lot of missed time and multiple neck surgeries and wasn't a sure thing to even play again at any level. He'd already been replaced in Indy by Luck- and was expendable and cheap for Denver as a low risk signing, plus they had a Wade Phillips coached defense to take the pressure off whomever they trotted out at QB. Also, Denver doesn't mind drafting 1st round QBs fairly often even if they miss.

IMO, after Rivers, there will be a period of signing FA QBs along the lines of Jim McMahon, Mark Malone, Stan Humphries, Jim Harbaugh, Doug Flutie supplemented by attempts to draft/develop a guy who might stick like Mark Vlasic, Billie Joe Tolliver, Craig Wheelihan, Drew Brees with mixed success. You gotta remember neither TT or Lynn is so proven and entrenched they are Chargers more than 1 year at a time and their philosophies for building a team may not last long before John Spanos goes another direction. And also keep in mind the move to KroenkeWorld will play a HUGE role in what they do since it all comes down to the $ for Team Spanos.

[Gwynning_Spirit]

Rodgers sat for 3 years with a season-ending injury in the middle there, and then basically got a contract extension midway through his 1st season as starter (they went 6-10 that year). I give the GB FO credit for believing/evaluating what they had in pick #24. I see a lot of high-to-earlier round QB washout without getting that kind of an investment from their team.

[SDFan]

but getting back to the Chargers: how long did Leaf sit and learn behind a vet? How long for Brees behind Flutie and Rivers behind Brees? Those would seem to be most relevant recent comparisons? Although drafting a young guy and having him sit and learn from a quality vet for a couple years before taking over seems the most logical way to develop a starter, history doesn't seem to suggest it. Could happen I suppose...

[Gwynning_Spirit]

Getting back to Rodgers: did he learn from Favre or was it McCarthy's 6-hour a day QB school?
As blueman points out, some guys have it and some don't. But which coach on this staff is going to develop this QB? Whiz... well Mettenberger apparently didn't have it; Warner did more with Vermeil/Martz, but already was what he was. Steichen has no track record yet.

[Heatmiser]

You are right. I remember thinking that Rodgers might be a bust or a china doll and that the Packers were making a big mistake. Their patience paid off.

[Steve]

History points out that guys like Joe Montana, Farve, Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, Brees generally have a better track record long term. They all sat behind a vet QB for at least one season, and Rivers and Rodgers more.

Some QB have early success when they start early, but most do not. Carson Wentz is an exception. Most of the players who start from day 1 have some period of struggles. Some of which overcome them and some don't.

College QB have a lot of good things going for them. They often have thrown a lot more passes and have seen more different defenses than in the past. But so many of this years QB struggle with at least some part of their mechanics. It is tough to go on and develop as a QB if you lack mechanics and then struggle to throw the ball consistently. Any QB, regardless of where you pick them, needs to develop their mechanics to the point they throw the ball consistently. It's how they get accuracy. Only then can they really learn to read defenses and learn to play QB. If the prospect cannot control the pass and throw the ball, they never know when the int is a product of just being a poor throw, or if they bad a bad read (or both).

[SDFan]

History points out that guys like Joe Montana, Farve, Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, Brees generally have a better track record long term. They all sat behind a vet QB for at least one season, and Rivers and Rodgers more.

Some QB have early success when they start early, but most do not. Carson Wentz is an exception. Most of the players who start from day 1 have some period of struggles. Some of which overcome them and some don't.

College QB have a lot of good things going for them. They often have thrown a lot more passes and have seen more different defenses than in the past. But so many of this years QB struggle with at least some part of their mechanics. It is tough to go on and develop as a QB if you lack mechanics and then struggle to throw the ball consistently. Any QB, regardless of where you pick them, needs to develop their mechanics to the point they throw the ball consistently. It's how they get accuracy. Only then can they really learn to read defenses and learn to play QB. If the prospect cannot control the pass and throw the ball, they never know when the int is a product of just being a poor throw, or if they bad a bad read (or both).

maybe it's just my impression, but it seems the trend over the last 5+ years has been every team that takes a QB high in the 1st round starts them if not game 1, then at some later point in their rookie season because of wanting to get returns from the huge investment made and the fact they only control them a few years before the next big negotiation for a 2nd contract that could make them the highest paid player. Everyone knows that is not the most successful way to develop a kid,but $ is forcing the issue.

[bonehead]

History points out that guys like Joe Montana, Farve, Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, Brees generally have a better track record long term. They all sat behind a vet QB for at least one season, and Rivers and Rodgers more.

Some QB have early success when they start early, but most do not. Carson Wentz is an exception. Most of the players who start from day 1 have some period of struggles. Some of which overcome them and some don't.

College QB have a lot of good things going for them. They often have thrown a lot more passes and have seen more different defenses than in the past. But so many of this years QB struggle with at least some part of their mechanics. It is tough to go on and develop as a QB if you lack mechanics and then struggle to throw the ball consistently. Any QB, regardless of where you pick them, needs to develop their mechanics to the point they throw the ball consistently. It's how they get accuracy. Only then can they really learn to read defenses and learn to play QB. If the prospect cannot control the pass and throw the ball, they never know when the int is a product of just being a poor throw, or if they bad a bad read (or both).

Deshaun Watson is another exception, but you are right most rookies forced into starting roles do struggle

[bonehead]

Actually Wentz wasn’t so hot his first year

[blueman]

[oneinchpunch]

Chargers should trade Rivers for Joey Harrington...

[Joy Division]

Give me Rudolph and let him sit behind Rivers for 2 years. He can learn from the best while providing great insurance for the next 2 years and hopefully a smooth transition when his time comes. Although I'd be happy with Vea, VDB, or DRP at that spot too.

[Gwynning_Spirit]

As you said before, some don't have it, and some "its" here could be the work ethic, and learning what it takes to prepare like a pro. A rookie sitting behind Rivers or Brees could get the latter from QB's like that.

But sitting could also be good depending on the situation. The expansion Texans threw Carr out there and got him killed. But they also were messing with his delivery. Had he gone somewhere with a good coaching staff where he could've sat, would his career have turned out different, or was he just destined to be a bust?
While Rodgers was behind Favre, McCarthy messed with his delivery and mechanics. Had he not sat, would he be who he is today? Plus, the team was a loser his 1st starting year, like Aikman's or P.Manning's.
Wentz came into a good situation. Had he gone to the Browns instead of the Eagles, would he have succeeded?

I think that not sitting often does determine an unsuccessful QB, even if the reverse doesn't hold true.

[Panamamike]

Give me Rudolph and let him sit behind Rivers for 2 years. He can learn from the best while providing great insurance for the next 2 years and hopefully a smooth transition when his time comes. Although I'd be happy with Vea, VDB, or DRP at that spot too.

I am 100% in favour of NOT drafting a qb in rds 1 or 2; and prefer to hold off completely on QB at least for one year. We can get key guys to help us win now with those picks. Add them to last years #1 and 2 and we can substantially upgrade our talent base for years to come. Rivers is coming off arguably his best season so I really dont feel the pressing need. Just my .02

[Gwynning_Spirit]

I agree with your .02.

[Heatmiser]

Steve makes a great point about high draft pick QBs sitting, but when is the last time you remember that actually happening? It seems like the norm now is to throw the kid into the fire either right away or when the sucky team that drafted him starts tanking about a third of the way into the season. Combine this new philosophy with most college QB playing in a spread offense away from center and that is probably why there are so many busts.

Watson looked great for his first 10 games, but so did Prescott and last year Prescott looked not so good.

TG

[Panamamike]

Prescott also missed his all pro RB, all pro Lt, other oline injuries and departures and lacks weapons in the passing game. Dez hasn't been a top or even very good wr for a few years now IMO.

[Gwynning_Spirit]

Steve makes a great point about high draft pick QBs sitting, but when is the last time you remember that actually happening? It seems like the norm now is to throw the kid into the fire either right away or when the sucky team that drafted him starts tanking about a third of the way into the season. Combine this new philosophy with most college QB playing in a spread offense away from center and that is probably why there are so many busts.

Watson looked great for his first 10 games, but so did Prescott and last year Prescott looked not so good.

TG

Steve is right about the benefit of not being thrown onto the field, but 4 of the 5 guys he mentioned weren't high 1st round draft picks, and, as we recall, Rivers was a TC hold out his rookie year, and was going to ask for a trade if we'd kept Brees any longer.
But, as you and SDfan already pointed out, the trend is to throw the high ones out there.
So, do I really have a point here, or did I just want to rhyme norm now with norm chow?

[Steve]

What is the percentage of top QB that make it when they are thrown into the fire early? I don't know the stats off the top of my head, but it is kinda low. The percentage for waiting may not be great, but it is higher. When you consider the top picks should be the "best" players, then it figures sitting the player could be helping them quite a bit.

[Panamamike]

I do not believe this is Rivers last season. We have a very good and mostly young roster. We have all the ingredients required to make a run now...pass rush, pass D, reinvested in online, etc. I believe his competitive fire is as strong now as ever. Hence, I do not think we need to burn a top pick yet on a position that will not likely play for at least 3 seasons. If the roster was really weak, our D sucked and the division and conference was strong as hell, I would have a different view.