someone kind of gets it... you mention TEAM... it is a team game... qb is just a part of the whole... sb winning qbs can be had in the first or not... its not the end all be all.. build a team..
Again you are not wrong here, as long as you realize that QB is the BIGGEST part of the whole and the data shows that no matter where they were picked SB winning QBs played at a very high level in the years they won (Dilfer and Johnson and their type being outliers to the line of best fit).
Round 1 or Round 3 or 6 or UFA doesn't matter to how well they played (which is your point and the correct part). Your implication is that no QB need be taken in the 1st round this year, and that has yet to be determined or proven though.
We could have Allen/Hooker/Trubisky/Kizer/Garrett maybe even .... when those of us lobby for a QB we opine:
1. There is elite level potential in the pick.
2. Other defensive picks may be #1 at their position but there are also likely candidates for similar or even better production from value picks down the line.
3. No one defensive position is as important as QB to the overall success of any team.
Some may see a pick like Allen or Hooker as being more worthy than any of the QBs due to their flaws and that's not entirely unreasonable. But often during their defense of the pick, they make statements or make implications that severely overblow the one D lineman or S in value compared to a high level producing QB.
No single position on D that is producing at a high level is equal in value to a QB that is producing at a high level. That's just simply the nature of the game. Anyone is certainly free to advocate for all defense and tank another year for next year's big swing at top 5 QB and new HC (I sometimes find myself leaning that way in my mind, Halas forgive me). But some either ignore the value accorded to each position in football when they try to justify Hooker or Allen or (insert D player) over QB or they get it wrong when they compare the values of QB to any position on D.
