I would just say that if we were to take a QB, it is not necessarily a "liquid" commodity.This is precisely the point. And also precisely the same point I've been making. No one expected us to land the #3. Wasn't long ago we were hoping for maybe 10 or 12. The pick @3 changes the game.
Being smart means looking at the pick as a "draft arbitrage" whereby we leverage the QB position (easily the highest VALUE position in the NFL) and bet in both directions at the same time! That's the surest way to "insure" the value of the pick -- and at the same time add high-quality developmental talent into the QB mix.
Point is -- if Tua stalls we have a potential solution on hand. If Tua plays great -- we have quality depth at the most critical/valuable position -- and that value is totally liquid and can be flipped at any time for more yield. You also receive the obvious benefit of legit competition at the position and make the point that EVERY one is accountable and their job is 100% based on performance.
The only "downside" is that you're deferring some immediate gratification for a longer term view -- but you're in no way discounting the pick. To the contrary -- you're potentially enhancing the value and certainly protecting it.
Do that or find a value-driven trade down. But that's an option that's entirely based on a partner --- or hopefully a sucker.
One way or another -- the strategy has to be at least considered IMO.
It may be in a perfect situation, like Garrapalo for example, but one of the values of rookie rd1 QBs, is the 5 year rookie contract.
If 2 years pass, that value is diminished.
On the other hand, drafting a QB, without using multiple high picks, is cheap insurance.
I'm not going to be too upset, either way (unless the whole thing is a catastrophe.....lol).