The purpose of my post, had nothing to do with whether or not your better off drafting a QB, trading for one, or acquiring one in Free agency. That is a case specific circumstance, and varies greatly from team to team and year to year.
Nor did my post have absolutely anything to do with the Rams, or Stafford, for that matter. Grow up and stop trying making every argument you have with me about the Lions.
As for lear (?) ing to read, I can read just fine, thank you. Here is what you said.
What's interesting about the list above is that less than 1/2 of those were early 1st round picks.
But it's not interesting at all. Yet is a point that is brought up on this board over and over and over again, in one of many different iterations. When you take into account that the possibly 12-16 QB's might be taken in the draft in one year, and only 2-4 of those are taken in the "early 1st rounds", your faced with sometimes 6x as many QB's taken in the later picks.
Anybody with an analytic background will take what you, (and others for that matter) are offering up as proof you don't need to draft a Qb high in the draft and laugh. Because, while true on the surface, it doesn't take into account the superior success rate of the QB's taken early in the first round vs those taken later.
So, if your a GM, would you rather take a QB in the early first round in which history shows us has a 30-50% chance of success (depending on how you wish to define success), or a Qb later that has a 5-15% chance of success? So unless you plan on drafting 3-6 of these later round Qb's the answer is quite obvious.
