One way to think about Weeden and how to treat this whole age thing is to think about the way you evaluate running backs for the Draft.
Take Trent Richardson for example. Running backs have a history of not really being great until around their 2nd/3rd years in the league. Everyone thinks they're great right out of the box but the history isn't there. Not that they start off slow and terrible or anything like that, just that they absolutely do ramp up around those 2nd/3rd years.
But how many years do you really get out of a tailback? When you sign one that you drafted to a big contract around his 3rd or 4th year in the league, doesn't that often turn out to be a mistake? When you re-sign one to a big contract more like around his 5th or 6th year in the league, doesn't that usually end up a mistake? I mean really, when I draft a running back, I'm not expecting more than 5 or 6 years out of him. Sure, I allow for the potential for him to surprise me, but I'm not expecting it. I expect the guy to give me 5 or 6 good years and to be a true difference maker for maybe 4 of them.
So then we get back to Brandon Weeden. Will he be totally awesome right out of the box in his rookie year? No, but I expect him to be good, like Cam Newton or Andy Dalton. Not like Blaine Gabbert, whose grades I think Slimm may have been right to question, as we get on in this. I think he's looking to peak more around that 2nd/3rd year the same way a tailback would. But do I plan on him giving me more than 5 or 6 years? No. I'll allow for the possibility, as he could realistically give us up to 10 years, but I'm sure not counting on it or planning for it. I expect the guy to give me a good 5 or 6 years and to be a true difference maker for all 5 or 6 of them, because that's the nature of the position he plays, quarterback.
So if I'm sitting here in the top 10 and I'm willing to use a top 10 pick on Trent Richardson...I'm racking my brain here, why the hell am I *not* willing to use a top 10 pick on Brandon Weeden? I'm not sure if I would or not, to be honest, but I can tell you that logic is not on my side if I would use that top 10 pick on Trent Richardson (or rewind a year, Mark Ingram) but I would not use it on Brandon Weeden.
IMO I don't think anyone is going to draft Weeden to have him sit and learn, there's no time for that at his age. I think with the success of rookie QBs over the last 3 years someone is going to pick him and expect him to start day 1, learn on the job and plan on him being the QB till he's 35 or 36...6 or 7 years. Ideally you would want to take Justin Blackmon in the first and then take Weeden in the top of the 2nd. I think if no one takes a chance on him in the top 15 then he'll be there in the second...I don't see any of the teams picking later in the draft who already have starting QBs taking Weeden just to sit the kid. That doesn't make sense.
Whoever drafts Weeden will probably be looking to draft his replacement in 4 or 5 years but now you're not pressed to draft a QB, you're looking for someone like a Tannehill that would benefit from sitting for a year or two...a Matt Schaub, Matt Hasselbeck or Mark Brunell to groom as the backup and eventual starter.