Originally Posted by TexansFTW
Ryan Tannehill, maybe Jake Locker (who showed me in a limited time he was on the field this year that he COULD be an NFL QB).
I think he (Bortles) can be very good, but bottom end of top 10 QBs is the ceiling I see for him, which is hardly bad, don't get me wrong.
If a guy is good enough to go in the top 10 then he's not a reach at 1-1, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't believe in the BPA concept because I don't believe that there is such a thing as the "best player." The rankings of the players is purely subjective. So team A's BPA isn't going to be team B's BPA and that's certainly not the same as Mel Kiper's BPA.
Each team has to know its needs and its strengths and weaknesses. When they rank the players, they should be ranking by which player is going to have the most positive impact on their team.
So if we decide to take Bortles or Manziel or Bridgewater or Clowney first, I'm fine with that as long as the FO is right in determining that whichever guy they choose is going to have a huge impact on this team. BUT... with the rookie wage scale, it's not as important to hit on that 1-1 (or even top-10) pick as it used to be.
If we go with Bortles, he doesn't have to be the next Peyton Manning to be worth the 1-1 pick. He just needs to evolve into upper echelon QB in a year or two.
Up until the last few years, it was so rare for rookie QBs to be successful that it was silly. IIRC, only one rookie starting QB had a winning record in the history of the NFL prior to Roethlisberger... and now we've had a run of rookie and second year QBs doing great things.
I'm hoping whoever we pick duplicates that sort of Russell Wilson/Roethlisberger/RGIII success but the odds are against it. So I'm not expecting him to hit the ground running as an upper echelon QB.